Will It Be a Kinder, Gentler Iraq War Now?


Daily news and commentary by: Whymrhymer at the Blogger News Network

Conflicting reports about the proposed new Secretary of Defense must have many wondering about what is really going on in the White House and, in particular, in President Bush’s head.

On the surface, Robert Gates certainly has the credentials for the position: He was Deputy National Security Adviser and then Director of Central Intelligence under President G.H.W. Bush and he has been (and still is) a member of the current President Bush’s “Iraq study group.” The Iraq Study Group is led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and by former Representative Lee Hamilton. The purpose of that study group is to analyze our policies in Iraq and then, one would assume, make recommendations to the President on changes to those policies. It is for both his roles in the Bush 41 white house and for his role in the study group that Robert Gates is ‘taking heat’ . . . not only taking the expected heat from the ‘Democratic majority’ (a term you will eventually get used to uttering) but taking heat from conservative thinkers as well. As proof of that, look at an article in this morning’s Washington Times, a newspaper that always reflects Washington’s conservative perspective; but, it should be noted, that does not automatically give its ‘stamp of approval’ to everything the President says or does.

The Washington Times article demeans Robert Gates by calling him “an agent” of both former Secretary of State Baker and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; both of whom, the article suggests, “are from the ‘realist school’ of national security advocates and who oppose the Bush administration’s aggressive war on terrorism.”

If what the Times article says is factual (something one can never take for granted) it would mean that President Bush has intentionally appointed someone as Secretary of Defense who is ‘programmed’ to ‘tone down’ our war in Iraq — in other words, the words: “winning the war in Iraq” (our President’s current favorite phrase) may soon take on a whole new meaning.

It brings to mind the unforgettable Mel Brooks line from the 1981 film “History of the World: Part I”: “It’s good to be the King!”


The Washington Times: Pentagon takeover

International Herald Tribune: Bush ‘open to any idea’ for addressing war in Iraq

From the blogosphere:

A Step At A Time: Back to Iraq

Alternate Reality: And Now, Iraq

If you are dedicated to news and to blogging, The Blogger News Network has an offer you may not want to refuse. Go check it out!

powered by performancing firefox


3 thoughts on “Will It Be a Kinder, Gentler Iraq War Now?

  1. While I am not Rumsfield’s biggest fan, I think the problems in Iraq will persist. I still feel this was the right decision in the beginning, but mistakes were made and arrogance prevailed. Saddam would not reveal his WMD program. We had to put back bone into ultimatums to reveal what he did have. Also his mass murders were reason enough to go in, just like Bosnia and they were Muslims without oil.
    Do you remember history and “Peace in our time”? Well if someone had more back bone then, maybe 2 million Jews, Gypsies, Poles and others would still be alive. But then removing a man from power who has killed thousands of Kurd men, women and children is not worth it either?

    Here are a few statements from Terrorists:
    Osama bin Laden: “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse”
    Ayman al-Zawahiri: “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy”
    Osama bin Laden: “”We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993).””
    Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah: “Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September, Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America.”
    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Undoubtedly, I say that this slogan and goal is achievable, and with the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States

  2. Thank you both for your comments!

    I am also hopeful that Gates will be able to improve the Iraq situation. On Rumsfeld, I love the guy’s style but the fact of the matter is, at least in my eyes, we blew it and Rumsfeld was in charge.

    Carl, I’m coming from a different viewpoint on the war. It was, no doubt, a good thing that Saddam was removed and hopefully (after a few years of appeals) he will be hung. But if I were the President and had the information he was supposed to have had about WMD I probably would not have done the same thing Bush did. If I remember correctly, there were people in there (U.N. inspectors) looking for the weapons and they could not find them; there was no real reason at that point in time . . . at a point when Saddam had the eyes of the whole world on him, to invade; and if there was a reason, one that our government knew about, it certainly wasn’t because of Saddam’s cruelty to Iraqis (at least I hope it wasn’t).

    It may seem cold hearted but there have always been (and always will be) dictators killing their own people — we can’t take it upon ourselves to save the world from itself. If Saddam had attacked one of our allies, I would expect us to take him out just as I would expect our allies to actively defend us if we were attacked. That was the basis of WWII, Hitler was terrorizing our allies — we had no choice; we didn’t just go in because he hated Jews or because he was killing German Jews.

    As for the terrorist rhetoric — that’s public relations stuff. We hopefully have eyes and ears all over Iran and Syria and will know if they present an eminent threat to us or to our allies. If they do, we will have no choice but to attack and remove the threat; but not until then and not just because they are not nice people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s