Senator Robert Byrd -vs- Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Question Asked. And Answered?
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq of October 2, 2002 reads,
Today, in the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the following exchange occurred.
Senator Robert Byrd:
Since the government of Iraq that is referred to in the resolution no longer exists, having been replaced by a democratically elected one, do you agree that this authorization no longer applies to the ongoing conflict in Iraq?Secretary of Defense Robert Gates:
I think the honest answer, Senator Byrd, is that I don’t know the answer to that question.Senator Byrd:
That’s really honest. Therefore, if you don’t know the answer, how does it apply if you don’t know the answer?If You had Googled according to the title of this thread an hour ago, as I did, you would have found this exchange only in the Army Times. That tells me the troops are not disinterested in the answer to this question.
posted by Vigilante at 5/09/2007 09:23:00 PM
4 Moderated Comments:
- Gates is a culpable careerist and part of the problem, as the rest of the administration is. Like all those high power flunkies, he plays both sides of, 'private' interests, (special) interests, and Government 'interests', which are now melded.
Did he step into the position to act as a hatchet man for Economic interests ?
Does he have the American PEOPLES interest at heart ?
The Army Times is an interesting paper, and is asking harder questions than some regular media.
I raise the specter again...
A coup ? More than ever a possibility.
The Army Times is an independent civilian run paper. It is in no way a organ of the army as is the Navy Times, or Air Force Times a part of the Navy or Air force. Not trying to start anything here but don't read more into the story than there is. The Army Times pisses the brass off everytimes it gets a chance and has been doing this from way back before I ever joined.
Gates should get a Golden Quack for that one. What a fine duck!
Were the Military Times papers organs of the military establishment, they would not be free to represent the views of service people and their families, which they usually do fairly well.
Senator Byrd's question leaves no room for rebuttal.
I wonder what the commander in chief's answer to that one will be.
We have the same privately-run navy, army, air force newspapers and I personally subscribe to the Navy News.
Even at the height of Iran's RN 15 capture, there wasn't much by way of report or opinion, editorial, etc that would put the Navy in a bad light.
There were straight-forward news report, the same you would find anywhere else but not anything that would have been derogatory or highly critical of the Royal Navy leadership. This could be due to limited readership and advertising business that come from the relatively small British "navy family."
Post a Comment
<< Home