I would not cheer to much for Gates

Gates is as much of a crook as Rumsfeld although it is true he might not be quite as stupid.
Read this on gates:
click here
Also notice that Gates has been appointed without so much as even the appearance o consultation. Congress will now be asked to confirm him and there will be all the pundits saying that if the Dems obstruct it is a demonstration of how they refuse to work with the administration.
The Dems will no doubt decide to "keep their powder dry" AGAIN and another incompetent moron crook will be running the defense department. Remember this is the guy that was convinced the Soviet Union was poised at the pinnacle of its power three weeks before it collapsed. This is the guy who actually funded the training of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

by Aubrey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 12:43:58 PM
 

No cheers for anyone but the people at large

"Reportedly" was a key word in my post; I wouldn't trust anyone Bush put forth, as for the very reasons you cite (The link in my post provides even more info on Gates, from a CIA site, grain of salt not included).

We'll see what Gates says and does, although I understand the Iraqis have already been "reassured" by the administration that there will be no substantial change in policy.

But the larger point is that the Democrats have been reactive; now in power, we must be proactive: It matters less what Bush & Co. want; they will have to react to our legislation and power over the pursestrings -- strings definitely attached to any request for money for foreign adventures (without hurting the troops in the field).

by Douglas Drenkow (33 articles, 353 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, November 9, 2006 at 1:00:11 PM