managed this badly and that the process was this dysfunctional, then what was he, why did he stay on? toward the end of the bush years, i knew from talking to him that he was dying to leave. he stayed on very reluctantly. it s not surprising he was having unpleasant experience and what he describes in the book suggests why it became more unpleasant. something s lost there. i want to be clear. doesn t make it less true however. i m not questioning the veracity and gates has every right to speak his mind about war policy and what he thinks of the president. the business about the private conversations and the criticism that he says in the book that he did not make at the time, he was angry about the budget and the way the white house was stealing authority from the pentagon, an age-old problem he seems to have saved a lot of this for the tell-all. it seems like it s poor formed because he was a guy that everybody revered as a really fair and honorable guy here in town. i think in
expressed skepticism and doubt about his own war policy. that s what i want. i have friends and relatives in the military. i want my commander-in-chief to have a lot of skepticism and doubt about what s going on in a war instead of just blindly and pig headedly sending more soldiers into combat. did i hear you nodding, gloria? yeah, i do agree with paul. i think it s probably better, but probably not as marketable if you wait until after a president is out of office. but in reading what i ve head of this book, and again, i obviously haven t read the whole thing, but i read excerpts of it and the pieces about it. the thing that strikes me is that bob gates was the secretary of defense who says that he didn t mind that policy was being driven by white house and this is known to be a very controlling white house. he said, that s okay. the policy was driven by the white house. but what seemed to have really
i m an admirer. i think in the reviews of the book, several people including the new york times reviewer suggested that he s working through some emotional scars of his own. he went through hell helping lead our country through difficult wars. i m glad that the president expressed skepticism and doubt about his own war policy. that s what i want. i want my commander-in-chief to have a lot of skepticism and doubt about what s going on in a war instead of just blindly and pig headedly sending more soldiers into combat. did i hear you nodding, gloria? yeah, i do agree with paul. i think it s probably better, but probably not as marketable if you wait until after a president is out of office. but in reading what i ve head of this book, and again, i obviously haven t read the whole thing, but i read excerpts of it and the pieces about it. the thing that strikes me is that bob gates was the secretary
they fight back in the media, how do they respond? this is a devastating book for precisely the reasons you said. this brings afghanistan back into the news, it raises questions about his commitment to his own war policy and it comes from bob gates has a reputation here inside the beltway as a very classy guy, not one who is self aggrandizing. the administration has to be very careful here because of gates reputation, the president himself gave bob gates a medal of freedom not to try to demonize him or discredit the messenger as it pushes back inevitably against what is in the book. jon: he has commenced pointed out, a reputation as a straight shooter, even kill guy who is above politics. you would maybe expect a book like this from him, it took where he lays out everything. he seems pretty angry.
however we want. you make such a great point because so many americans are frustrated that we can t get our leadership to come together on domestic as we can for foreign war policy. right. it s interesting to watch. it s sort of the old school mentality. not there for domestic policies anymore. luke russert, thank you, sir. joining me is a member of the armed services committee who attended yesterday s contentious hearing on the foreign relations committee. congresswoman, great to have you here. the obama administration is really trying to convince the left, secretary kerry will chat with political bloggers. you say on your facebook and i oppose the united states taking military action against the assad regime in syria. explain what would the alternative be at the president s request to do it? i do oppose it, barring anything else happening here,