Little shop of horrors

Some fun now. Oh, we're in for some fun now.
The hearings about the nomination of Robert Gates to be Secretary of Defense have every potential of turning into a little shop of horrors for the Bush administration, considering as Ray McGovern describes it, who Gates is and his history with the Bushies:
[more in extended]

Ray McGovern writes

. . . In 1991, when President George H. W. Bush nominated Robert Gates for the post of director of Central Intelligence, there was a virtual insurrection among CIA analysts who had suffered under his penchant for cooking intelligence. The stakes for integrity of analysis were so high that many still employed at the agency summoned the courage to testify against the nomination. But the fix was in, thanks to then-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee David Boren and his staff director, George Tenet. The issue was considered so important, however, that 31 senators voted against Gates when the committee forwarded his nomination. Never before or since has a CIA director nominee received so many nay votes.
Gates is the one most responsible for institutionalizing the politicization of intelligence analysis by setting the example and promoting malleable managers more interested in career advancement than in the ethos of speaking truth to power. In 2002, it was those managers who then-CIA Director George Tenet ordered to prepare what has become known as the "Whore of Babylon" - the Oct. 1 National Intelligence Mis-Estimate on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq . . .

No wonder Bush wants to try to get this nomination through the lame duck Congress rather than waiting until the Democrats are running the committees.  
But I wonder if Bush remembers Iran-Contra?
I wonder if Bush realizes how deeply Gates -- and his own father -- were involved?  
Well, a few people in his administration can brief him.
And I wonder if Bush realizes how deeply John Kerry was involved in investigating the State Department drug trafficing related to Iran-Contra?  
You remember John Kerry, don't you George -- the guy your administration was sneering at and trying to humiliate a week ago?

•  Deep Breath

  While it looks like he may have some dirty hands (CIA guy, what do you expect?), for a Bush pick, he doesn't seem to bad.  We have to remember that it is Bush's pick, and although we need to make sure its not a terrible one, an analyst at the CIA who entered the Company during Vietnam and opposed it probably isn't too bad (after all, the 'wingers are suggesting Santorum or one of the other losers).  

  The guy seems to be genuinely smart, and as dean at A&M seems committed to thoughtful eductaion, seeking knowledge, and respecting the important members of an organization (he pushed the administrators/bean counters to the side, made the faculty more important, and hired lots of teachers to reduce class sizes).  

  Maybe I'm giving him too much.  Maybe after 6 years of terrible Bush appointments, I'm just glad he's not some half-cocked drooling moron or neo-con.  And although he was implicated in Iran-Contra, he was never chareged, and more importantly, he testified before Congress that he was sorry and should have done better.  A Bush appointee that will apologize when he screws up?  Also, he's not in Cheney's good graces.  Another bonus.

  That being said, I'm sure there are better candidates out there.  But can you think of a better person that Shrub will seek to appoint?  That is the truth of how we have to evaluate any secdef candidate.

  by agorabum on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:43:02 AM PDT

•  "death squads, dude!"

  THAT's the real problem with this guy.

  What Cathie said.

  See SOA Watch:
  http://www.soaw.org/...

  And for one more, what ever else you think of Bev Harris, Gates has a HAVA and voting-equipment company tie-in, too:
  http://www.blackboxvoting.org

  Peace

  by tom 47 on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:57:37 AM PDT

•  It was a dumb move by Bush

  Actually, I'm not sure whether he is a bad person or not.  But I just thought it was dumb of Bush to try to appoint someone so closely tied to Iran-Contra.
  Just another example of how badly out of touch Bush/Cheney are.  
  He should have appointed Colin Powell or someone recommended by Powell.  THAT was a nomination which would have gone through lickety-split.
  The other Iran-contra people in his administration came in when Democrats were too cowed or too cowardly to raise the Iran-Contra spectre.  Now, they are feeling their oats.  And Kerry, in particular, needs a "big win" against the Bushies.  So Gates is, I think, toast, because Kerry will ask a lot of very pointed questions during the confirmation process, and the republicans in congress have no reason to support any doubtful Bush pick anymore.

  by CathiefromCanada on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 10:14:13 AM PDT