Are we winning?

This was exactly the comment I made to CB, Racerx, about another Friedman, now morphing into a Gates, which is precisely equal to four Friedmans. Note how it give’s Bush the maximum flexibility to keep screwing things up, and then conveniently tosses the problem into the next President’s lap, likely blaming any and all that can be found, in that they tied the President’s hands in these two important years.

Cute huh?

Not a particularly strong post, CB. Surely the fact that Bush said we’re winning in Iraq one year or two years ago doesn’t give rise to an inference of self-contradiction when Gates says we are no longer winning today. That makes about as much sense as criticizing Kerry for being for the war before he was against it– circumstances change, and any politician should be commended, rather than criticized, for recognizing that fact and reacting to changing circumstances accordingly. More recently, Snow didn’t say that we’re winning or losing, he said that he didn’t know. Presumably Gates has a more precise definition of “winning” in mind than Snow does, but that’s hardly a contradiction. So the only arguable contradiction you’ve got is the Bush quote from six weeks ago. The post would have been better had you just stuck with that quote, rather than dragging in things from two years ago, as if there’s something wrong with an administration revising its opinion on a situation after two years of further development. The cry of flip-floppery was inane when the Bush team used it against Kerry in 2004, so let’s not let our side sink to the same level. As I said in 2004 with regard to Kerry and will say now with regard to Gates/Bush, the ability to change one’s opinion in light of further information is something I want in my national leaders, not something they should be criticized for in a play for rhetorical points.

That said, of course, the next time Bush exposes the degree of his self-delusion with another blind affirmation that everything in Iraq is going swimmingly, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the new head of the Pentagon thinks otherwise.

I wonder how the Right Wankers will react to such a definitive answer and one that contradicts the Dry Drunk in Chief. Surely he must be a lackey of the liberal MSM. Off with his head!

I don’t know. Right now I’m of the opinion that it would be hard to find something worse than Rumsfilled. But I also can’t get past the fact that Bush picked him. Then there is this: “it is the president who will decide what, if any, changes are made in our approach.”

I read this as either “All blame rests with the president.” OR “The Decider will continue to decide, get used to it.”

Finally, why does he talk about turning things around in a year or two? (AKA the Gates Unit.) Does the military have a year or two? Do the Iraqis? Does the Middle East? The fricking planet?

Gates says that we are not winning in Iraq. Does that make him “unpatriotic”, a “troop-hater”, a “Defeatocrat”, and a “terrorist-appeaser”? Just askin’.

It will be interesting, if Gates is confirmed, whether he will change his opinion once he’s in the cabinet. If he still says we aren’t winning after getting appointed, he’ll be the first person inside the White House who will have made such an admission. Then we’ll have to see if Bush and Cheny cave in to reality or if there will be a rift in the White House of true believers and the reality based community. Tony Snow’s verbal gymnastics are sure to be something to watch when that happens.

“why wouldn’t Gates lie about invading Iran” – Ohioan

Imagine the Iranians who bought missiles from this guy saying to themselves “he’ll never invade us, he sold us missiles”.

Then someone points out to them that Rumsfeld sold Saddam chemical weapons 😉

To Racerx, G2000 or whoever can educate me:

I’ve seen references to “Friedman” as a unit of measurement, ironic to be sure. I sort of get it, but not clearly.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot, libra!