Gates: 'We Need to Stay' in Iraq

[oberliner]

With President Bush nominating former CIA Director Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, Washington is scrambling to figure out what the change might mean for policy in Iraq. For one thing, it is the first clear signal that Bush is looking for a new path. Gates has been serving on the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, which is due to release its new strategy for Iraq in the coming weeks.

But perhaps the clearest signs comes from Gates's own recent remarks. Some of his most extensive public comments came a year ago and suggest that his appointment might not bring about the quick withdrawal that some Democrats in Congress have been calling for.

"For better or for worse, we have cast our lot and we need to stay there as long as necessary to get the job done," Gates said May 9, 2005, during a lecture series hosted by Leon Panetta, former chief of staff for President Clinton. "I think it would be a disservice to the young men and women who have given their lives and been casualties in Iraq to leave prematurely and have everything go back to being the way it was."

At the same time, his definition of victory is perhaps less sweeping than the democratic vision sketched out repeatedly by President Bush.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061108/8gatesqa.htm

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss.

[JDPriestly]

3. Prettier package. Apparently that is all. What a disappointment.

But then what should we have expected from Bush. Again in his press conference he revealed that he is in a total state of denial. he lied. He is unapologetic. He feels no regret. He remains arrogant. He did not hear the clear, loud message of his total defeat in this election.

[BleedingHeartRN]

2. Oh gawd.....

I hope I don't have a heart attack from the shock of that statement :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

5. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Not.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. I'm tired of this...

We need to leave, now. Why do we need to stay? To stop the hundreds of bodies from appearing every day? Oh, we can't stop it. To secure Baghdad? Nope, can't even secure the capital, let alone the country. We need to get the fuck out. Declare victory and leave. Don't buy the RW spin that we're somehow "protecting" Iraq. The Iraqis are going to have their blood feud and set up their country- democracy or theocracy - without us. If we do stay, all we do is waste $3 billion dollars per week and take more KIAs and WIAs.

If we (dems) don't force *co to bring them home... we deserve to lose the next election. Americans have sent a clear message - please dems, get us out of Iraq ASAP. If the DLC wing gets their way, we stay in Iraq. And if that happens, people will see that their trust was betrayed and vote repuke next time...

[PsN2Wind]

7. Or, maybe

we should just "Stay the Course". The more things change, the more things stay the same.

[MichiganVote]

8. Well buddy, you'll be out on your ass in 6 months---tops

We're just not buying the baloney anymore.

[bigtree]

9. exactly