But of course: Gates says the Times 'mischaracterized' his memo
On Sunday, I blogged a New York Times report that had US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sending a three-page memo to President Obama in January in which Gates "wrote of a variety of concerns, including the absence of an effective strategy should Iran choose the course that many government and outside analysts consider likely: Iran could assemble all the major parts it needs for a nuclear weapon — fuel, designs and detonators — but stop just short of assembling a fully operational weapon." Unsurprisingly, Gates is now claiming that the Times 'mischaracterized' his memo. Responding to a report in the New York Times, Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Sunday said the sources who had described his January classified memo on U.S. Iran strategy had "mischaracterized its purpose and content."And I suppose one of those questions must be the development of an effective strategy that will be used in the event that Iran continues to say 'no.'
"The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the National Security Advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content," Gates said in a statement Sunday.
"With the Administration's pivot to a pressure track on Iran earlier this year, the memo identified next steps in our defense planning process where further interagency discussion and policy decisions would be needed in the months and weeks ahead," Gates said.
"The memo was not intended as a 'wake up call' or received as such by the President's national security team," he continued. "Rather, it presented a number of questions and proposals intended to contribute to an orderly and timely decision making process."
In other words, the Times got it right this time.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:31 PM
2 Comments:
I am sure Gates is regretting having stayed on with the Chamberlain administration. On the other side of the coin, Gates had to know the 'bones' of Obama's philosophies, so why did he stay?
It would be a lie to not admit the negative consequences of a strike for surely there would be. Every action has a consequence. It is obvious though the consequences of Israel being obliterated is far less then a strike on Iran nukes. What does that tell you of the price on the head of a Jew?
I sit and ponder how long it would take the "allies" to retaliate in the event, G-d forbid, Israel was attacked. Worse, would the world do nothing??
The epicenter of every question concerning the plight of Israel and Jews in general lies in one form of antisemitism or another. Whether one wears it on the outside or harbors it in the inside or worse...deep within their subconscious the only RATIONAL explanation for INACTION to save Jews
is
ANTISEMITISM.
What is INDEPENDENCE anyway? One might think for the horrible suffering of Jews through the ages, Israel would be a beacon of hope. But then, no one really cares. Alas, this the bittersweet of a Jews very existence... PERIOD.
If the Obama Administration is prepared to answer Iran with any thing other than more talk, I haven't seen it. And Israel should not rely on US promises for its security. Deeds are far more important than words.
Post a Comment
<< Home