When ‘no,’ apparently, doesn’t mean ‘no’

December 5, 2006

I knew it was too good to last. Answering lawmakers questions during his confirmation hearing, Defense secretary nominee Robert Gates was doing quite well. Incoming committee chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked a simple question, “Are we winning the war in Iraq?” Gates responded with a simple answer, “No, sir.”

Since the president and other White House officials had a very different answer as recently as mid-October, this seemed like the kind of thing that become a headache for the Bush gang. Never fear, Tony Snow is on the case.

At the White House, press secretary Tony Snow was pressed by reporters about Gates’ answer that the U.S. is not winning in Iraq – one that seemed to be in conflict with the president’s own position.

Snow said that Gates’ testimony, taken in its entirety, shows he shares Bush’s view that the U.S. must help Iraq govern and defend itself.

“I know you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president, it doesn’t exist,” Snow told reporters.

“If you want to try get a nuanced and full understanding of where Bob Gates stands on these issues with regard to the president and his policies and the definition of what it is to win and Iraq and what it takes, then I think you’re going to find he agrees” with Bush, Snow said.

Of course, Bush says we’re winning, Gates says we’re not. Why would anyone think they disagree?

I also loved Snow’s notion that Gates’ position is “nuanced.” Are we winning? No, sir. It’s obviously one of those rich, texturing exchanges with the kind of depth that only Tony Snow can fully appreciate.

Alas, Gates’ response was apparently a classic Michael Kinsley moment — when a political figure makes a mistake by accidentally telling the truth. After the morning session had ended, and presumably after Karl Rove had made a few phone calls, Gates began the latter-half of today’s hearings with a “clarification.”

At the outset of an afternoon session of questions about Iraq and other subjects, Gates began by telling the committee he wanted to amplify on his remark about not winning in Iraq. He did not withdraw the remark but said, “I want to make clear that that pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole.”

He said he did not want U.S. troops to think he believes they are being unsuccessful in their assigned missions.

And he seemed to be off to such a promising start….

“I also loved Snow’s notion that Gates’ position is ‘nuanced.’ ”

Bush doesn’t do nuance. He told us so himself. But he will smack his boy around to tow the party line. The dike is leaking, though, and all the spackling the Bushites put on the crack won’t stop the eventual flood.

  • I can’t wait for someone in the press corpse to cough the word “bullshit” during one of Snow’s statements that up is down.

    And did anyone else catch this funny: “Gates began by telling the committee he wanted to amplify on his remark about not winning in Iraq.”

    I think the press will amplify his remark, don’t worry!

    And the “clarification” didn’t do Bush any favors, that’s for sure. “[not winning] pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole”? That’s just gobbledegoop, and it still says “no, we’re not winning”, no matter what Snowjob or Dear Leader say it says.

  • Reading the article, it’s now painfully obvious that the hype over the Iraq Study Group’s “new” approach to Iraq was a pile of crap.

    “…Meanwhile, Bush had an in-person preview of a prestigious blue-ribbon panel’s recommendations for a new way forward in Iraq…

    Gates, who served on the commission until his nomination was announced by Bush on Nov. 8, said he did not know what the panel would recommend.

    “It’s my impression that frankly there are no new ideas on Iraq,” he said…”

    So, media whores, enough of the “prestigious blue-ribbon panel” crap, and “a new way forward” crap. It was a sham all along, and you’ve been had, again. How many times now have you fallen for this same stunt?

  • The words vomited forth by this administration only have meaning in a political sense.

  • Is a snow job the same as a blow job except in reverse? —
    E.C. Sedgwick, @5

    Depends on what (or who) is coming down and where, don’t it?

  • “Are we winning the war in Iraq?” Gates responded with a simple answer, “No, sir.”

    And when John Cornyn of Texas asked Gates if we were “losing the war in Iraq”, Gates was able to say No to that too which of course was a great relief. So long as we’re not totally screwed, we’re doing OK.

  • If America is neither winning or losing in Iraq, perhaps somebody can explain how its continued presence in force is contributing to a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is a strategic partner in the war on terror and promises not to have WMD’s, ever.

    An object that is going neither forward or backward is not in motion. An army that is not winning or losing, but is itself continuing to take losses, is not accomplishing anything that history will record as a great victory.

  • How about this question.

    Who exactly are we defeating in Iraq and what, if we are defeating them, are their war goals that we are preventing them from achieving?

    Because it seems that the Iraqi Shi’a death squads are achieving their goals,

    And the Sunni Insurgents in An Bar are achieving their goals,

    And the al-Qaeda Jihadists are achieving their goals,

    While we can’t get enough oil out of Iraq to reduce prices around the world,

    And we can’t seem to establish a democracy there that is going to be a spark to light the Middle East to reform,

    And we didn’t find any real WMD,

    And Saddam is still alive.

    Thus it seems like THEY’RE winning and WE’RE losing.

    • Comments are closed.