Robert Gates and Iran-Contra
[J.D. Henderson,
Wednesday November 8, 2006 at 10:46am ]
Gates is an impressive guy, the only person ever to rise from entry-level CIA employee to CIA diretor. Unfortunately, he appears to have had knowledge of illegal activity (the Iran-Contra affair) and there are indications that he lied to Congress about it. From the Independent Counsel's report:
From the Congressional Record, November 07, 1991, remarks by Senator Harkin:
Is this the best Mr. Bush could do? Really?
A man with this history doesn't seem the best fit, especially since Sen. Harkin's list of his deficiencies fits EXACTLY with the mistakes that led us into Iraq - ideology over reality, stifling of dissent, politization of intelligence, worst-case scenarios presented as the most likely scenarios, and possibly illegal acts swept under the rug.
Perhaps the administration is attempting to force the Democrats to either ignore Gates' shady past as "old news" and thus a Rumsfeld clone takes the helm and continues the purging of the officer corps and does not change a thing, only the name on the door. If the Democrats ask tough questions at the confirmation hearings they could be immediately painted as obstructionist and unwilling to work with Bush, dredging up a scandal that most people know nothing about and don't care about (although it led us directly into the mess we find ourselves in today). The admnistration will complain that all the Democrats are after is vengeance, that their talk of bipartisanship is all an act, look at how they are attacking poor Gates over some scandal in the past that nobody cares about anymore, etc. etc.
Bush sure plays hardball. Either we have a Rumsfeld Clone or the democrats immediately are in a tough spot right out of the gate. Brilliant.
If he could only be as brilliant when it came to military strategy we would have already succeeded in Iraq.
UPDATE: The more I hear about Robert Gates, the more I think Senator Harkin was mistaken. I think Bush may have made an excellent choice in Robert Gates. Time magazine's article by Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East and the author of See No Evil, is very laudatory. Many people from both sides of the aisle, including many who despise Mr. Rumsfeld and are not friends of the Bush administration, seem impressed with him. It also appears he was, at best, only remotely involved in Iran-Contra, if at all. I am still concerned about the Independent Prosecutor's conclusion that he lied to Congress, but given the comments by those in the know, I am more than willing to give Mr. Gates, not a pass if he lied to Congress, but at least the benefit of the doubt, and I will assume he did not.
I think (no, I HOPE) I was exactly wrong about my initial concerns. Instead of a Rumsfeld clone we may have instead the anti-Rumsfeld in Robert Gates. I sure hope so, because our Army and Marines deserve the best we can give them.
Good luck, Mr. Gates. The challenges you face are enormous. We are all depending on you.
The Independent Counsel decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute Gates.
Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.
From the Congressional Record, November 07, 1991, remarks by Senator Harkin:
The confirmation hearings only raised more questions and greater doubts. Questions and doubts about Mr. Gates' past activities, managerial style, judgment, lapses in memory and analytical abilities. Questions and doubts about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair and in providing military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; and questions and doubts about whether he will be able to remove the ideological blinders reflected in his writings and speeches or whether Mr. Gates is so rooted in the past, that he will not be able to lead the Agency into the post-cold war era. Because of these concerns, I have concluded that Mr. Gates is not the right person for the important job of overseeing our intelligence operations in this New World....
According to Hal Ford, whose testimony the nominee never refuted, Gates leaned heavily on the Iran Estimate, in effect, `insisting on his own views and discouraging dissent.' What was the result? The 1985 estimate was skewed and contributed to the biggest foreign policy debacle of the Reagan administration, the sale of arms to Iran.
...Graham Fuller, the CIA's National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, suggested that the 1985 SNIE estimate was based on intuition in the absence of hard evidence. I agree there is nothing wrong with preparing worse case scenarios or using `intuition' as opposed to hard evidence in the preparation of analysis, provided it is made clear to policymakers that the finished analysis is based on intuition and not hard evidence. It is the job of the CIA to sort out fact from fiction, not convert one into the other.
...I also have doubts and questions about Mr. Gates' role in the secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq.... The secret intelligence sharing operation with Iraq was not only a highly questionable and possibly illegal operation, but also may have jeopardized American lives and our national interests. The photo reconnaissance, highly sensitive electronic eavesdropping and narrative texts provided to Saddam, may not only have helped him in Iraq's war against Iran but also in the recent gulf war. Saddam Hussein may have discovered the value of underground land lines as opposed to radio communications after he was give our intelligence information. That made it more difficult for the allied coalition to get quick and accurate intelligence during the gulf war. Further, after the Persian Gulf war, our intelligence community was surprised at the extent of Iraq's nuclear program. One reason Saddam may have hidden his nuclear program so effectively from detection was because of his knowledge of our satellite photos. What also concerns me about that operation is that we spend millions of dollars keeping secrets from the Soviets and then we give it to Saddam who sells them to the Soviets. In short, the coddling of Saddam was a mistake of the first order.
...I've stated a very simple case for rejecting the nomination of Robert Gates to be Director of the CIA. The fact that he was wrong on major issues which in some instances led to foreign policy debacles. I haven't addressed concerns about the allegations of his politicization of intelligence analysis, his apparently poor managerial style or still unanswered questions about his role in the Iran-Contra affair. Regarding the Iran-Contra affair, I should mention that I was quite disturbed to hear testimony that portrayed Robert Gates as someone concerned about Agency's role and not sufficiently concerned about pursuing possible illegal Government activities. In his opening statement before the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Gates said that he should have taken more seriously `the possibility of impropriety or possible wrongdoing in the Government and pursued this possibility more aggressively.' I agree.
I should also mention... that aside from Mr. Gates' poor judgment in not pursuing the possibility of Government wrongdoing more aggressively, I still find it incredible that the Deputy Director of CIA was not aware of that major covert operation. How could such a high ranking official not know about the CIA's efforts to support the Contras? Did he purposely avoid trying to find out what was happening? The testimony seemed to indicate he did. Gates' selective lapses in recall about the affair by a man with a photographic memory raises serious doubts.
The U.S. Congress and the American people depend on accurate and reliable intelligence information. Our expenditures on defense and other areas are often decided on the basis of that information. We cannot afford to waste billion of dollars in the future. After reviewing the record, I do not believe that the Central Intelligence Agency under the directorship of Robert Gates will provide the clear intelligence assessments necessary for Congress to make decisions to deal with the future threats confronting our nation.
Is this the best Mr. Bush could do? Really?
A man with this history doesn't seem the best fit, especially since Sen. Harkin's list of his deficiencies fits EXACTLY with the mistakes that led us into Iraq - ideology over reality, stifling of dissent, politization of intelligence, worst-case scenarios presented as the most likely scenarios, and possibly illegal acts swept under the rug.
Perhaps the administration is attempting to force the Democrats to either ignore Gates' shady past as "old news" and thus a Rumsfeld clone takes the helm and continues the purging of the officer corps and does not change a thing, only the name on the door. If the Democrats ask tough questions at the confirmation hearings they could be immediately painted as obstructionist and unwilling to work with Bush, dredging up a scandal that most people know nothing about and don't care about (although it led us directly into the mess we find ourselves in today). The admnistration will complain that all the Democrats are after is vengeance, that their talk of bipartisanship is all an act, look at how they are attacking poor Gates over some scandal in the past that nobody cares about anymore, etc. etc.
Bush sure plays hardball. Either we have a Rumsfeld Clone or the democrats immediately are in a tough spot right out of the gate. Brilliant.
If he could only be as brilliant when it came to military strategy we would have already succeeded in Iraq.
UPDATE: The more I hear about Robert Gates, the more I think Senator Harkin was mistaken. I think Bush may have made an excellent choice in Robert Gates. Time magazine's article by Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East and the author of See No Evil, is very laudatory. Many people from both sides of the aisle, including many who despise Mr. Rumsfeld and are not friends of the Bush administration, seem impressed with him. It also appears he was, at best, only remotely involved in Iran-Contra, if at all. I am still concerned about the Independent Prosecutor's conclusion that he lied to Congress, but given the comments by those in the know, I am more than willing to give Mr. Gates, not a pass if he lied to Congress, but at least the benefit of the doubt, and I will assume he did not.
I think (no, I HOPE) I was exactly wrong about my initial concerns. Instead of a Rumsfeld clone we may have instead the anti-Rumsfeld in Robert Gates. I sure hope so, because our Army and Marines deserve the best we can give them.
Good luck, Mr. Gates. The challenges you face are enormous. We are all depending on you.
0 Trackbacks /
This was a well scripted act. Perhaps not the selection of Gates, but the resignation. It is, from an administration viewpoint, imperative that Rummy not have to deal with a Democratic House and Senate. Way too risky for him and for Bush. Thus, the fall back plan was put in place and the new SecDef was tied down in time for an immediate announcement should the Dems pull it off. Which they did.
Al
Great analysis. Gates is a long-time Bush family confidant, definately a Rumsfeld clone. . .
Al-
That's interesting, with all the hoopla I never thought of that angle. Very nice. Also I would add that the Demos are ever so willing to makes deals with this wolves. Ya wonder about any deals that will be made in the coming days concering investigations and the limits of such. I sure hope the Demos pick up the Senate as well, that would add a would different dynamic. . .
Is it "vengeance" to question whether a documented liar with no military experience (2 years in the Air Force?) is the best guy to run the Pentagon?
As Bug Bunny would have said: "Geez. What a maroon. What an im-BESS-ile!"
But I've got to say..the sweetest words spoken to my ears that made me smile and lmao was when Ms. Pelosi said, "...and fiscal responsibility..."
roflmao!
A Democrat to the Republicans, I love it!
It is a beautiful day here in Sunny America, and a poke in the eye to the Republicans!
Fiscal Responsibility, the Democrats are now giving the Republicans lessons in money management. I love it!
lmao!
1) eager to work in a bipartisan manner to solve our Iraq "problem," but
2) disappointed in Mr. Bush's throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the democrats the very next day after the American people called for change.
3)The democrats could then explain that they expected the president to reach across the aisle rather than refuse to acknowledge the will of the voters,
4) They could then point out that the democrats are not willing to continue down the already-failed policies of the past, that the will of the people is clear, they want change, not more of the same.
If they characterize the nomination of Gates as a refusal to change course - which it is - they can plant that seed now and by the time the hearings begin they can lament Mr. Bush's lack of bipartisan cooperation and refusal to change course. The republicans will be on the defensive and their claims that they are changing course by getting rid of Rumsfeld and nominating Gates does two things:
1) reinforces the belief that a change is needed and that only defeat at the polls convinced the Republicans of that, and
2) makes Gates' qualifications, rather than the Democrats' questions, the issue being debated. Instead of "Democrats oppose Bush's choice" the headlines might read "Bush nominates Iran-Contra scandal insider, a slap in the face to democrats."
If Nancy Pelosi immediately expressed her "dismay and disappointment that the President would nominate a clearly unacceptable candidate the very next day after the nation had called for change" and "respectfully requested that Mr. Bush instead reach out to Democrats so that we can work together to help America and end the pointless partisan bickering" it would go a long way. The talking points of the day for Democrats would be that of course Mr. Rumsfeld had to go, duh, but the nomination of Gates is a clear indication that the president is unwilling to change course and unwilling to work with the Democrats - and thus unwilling to listen to the American people.
If the debate is about whether the nomination of Gates is a slap in the face to Democrats, rather than a debate about whether Democrats are being "vengeful," then the hearings might actually be productive and a defeat of Gates' nomination would be proof that the Democrats are "standing up for America" and that they are a party that will change the status quo.
And, most importantly, we might end up with a SecDef that is actually competent, effective, and willing to do what is right for America instead of what is right for politics.
Obvious question, if Gates was going to replace Rumsfeld in any case, why did Bush lie to the press about Rumsfeld staying? Rummy was a liability - everyone knew that. Would not have unveiling Gates right before the election have helped the Republicans? Bush attempts to spin it as being about the war, but that doesn't esplain the timing at all. They really seem to be in panic mode at this point. . .
At least he didn't pick Condi or Harriet Miers. Though I
suppose given the need to cozy up to Iran to get out of
Iraq, it may not be such a bad idea to have someone who's
done backroom deals with the mullahs in the past.
The big lesson is that you have to nail these screwups to
the wall first time round, else they pop up again for the
next 30 years. I'm somewhat optimistic that hardnosed
guys like Conyers and Waxman will be getting to work.
On the broad political front, the results are just utterly
devastating to the Rove/DeLay vision of the Republican
party. Republicans outside the South are now a rare
and endangered species. We can expect a number of
retirements in the House as Repubs find that opposition
is no fun, so in 2008 there should be plenty of open
seats and a good chance for Dems to hold their gains;
and in the Senate, the Dems are on offense again, with
only 12 seats to defend against 21 Repubs, including some
shaky beneficiaries of post-9/11 hysteria. Furthermore,
it's going to be tough to find plausible R presidential
candidates for 2008 who haven't fatally compromised
themselves by their support for Bush, who now is proved
to be electoral poison acroos most of the nation. And
yes, that includes McCain.
All in all, a thoroughly deserved debacle.
He pretty much admitted that he flat-out lied about
Rumsfeld staying. And then when asked about Cheney, he
said Cheney's staying, and you can trust me on that because
the election is over. So, in case anyone hasn't noticed
it already from his previous campaigns, that means he
lies on the campaign trail whenever it's convenient.
The man has just been a blight on the politics and governance
of the USA. Thank heavens the American people were savvy
enough to kick him hard yesterday.
The president doesn't think he needs any justification or explanation before sending our children into battle. "Excuse me, Mr. Jones, we need your son to go to war. He might die." "But why?" "You don't need to know. How dare you question me, don't you love your country?" Or worse, "Because [insert lie here]."
It is OUR country and OUR government, it does not belong to the president. Before asking us to risk our lives or the lives of our children, he owes us details. Truthful details. Only the ballot box reminded him of this.
Can he be more despicable?
Poor grammar aside, this reveals that the man making decisions about our very survival does not know the difference between strategy and tactics. Most people don't, but shouldn't the highest-ranking guy, the guy in charge of our military, know, especially if he has decided to ignore his military advisors and do things his own way instead?
I say impeach him. Lying about a blowjob deserved impeachment - it did - but isn't lying about a war where our troops are dying due to incompetence and partisanship a little worse? A little? Just a teensy-weensy bit?
JD, please tell me you're being facetious here.
On the other subject of today, as personally satisfying as I'd find impeachment, I can't say it would be a good idea. For the moment, its tactically infeasible; while the House might be able to return articles, I can't imagine the Senate would convict. Moreover, impeachment would be an immensely time consuming process. I feel strongly that we'd be better served as a nation by less divisive but probably more through House investigations.
No, I am not. It is true that the question should never have been asked, but regardless of how Mr. Clinton ended up there, he was testifying under oath. He lied. Under oath. That is conduct unbecoming a military officer, and I expect at least as much from the President of the United States. Sure, he didn't want to answer, but the truth came out anyway and he had committed perjury.
So no, I am not being facetious. I blame the Republicans for (again) ignoring the will of the people and conducting a witch-hunt at taxpayer expense in order to attempt a coup, but that is a different issue. Mr. Clinton lied under oath. I do beleive he should have been impeached, as he was.
I also think I would have voted not to convice. The mere fact of impeachment was punishment enough, but actual conviction and removal from office would have overturned the will of the People.
Mr. Bush is different - he should be impeached, convicted, and then handed over to the ICC for a war-crimes trial.
Even though the confirmations will take place in this Congress (wow, they actually have to put in a full day's work), the mandate from the election yesterday means that the Republicans would be idiots to freeze out the Democrats like they have for the past few years. The Democrats would LOVE to be frozen out again, they would talk about the lack of cooperation, the lack of bipartisanship, republican refusal to accept the will of the people, etc. No, the system changed yesterday, and the outgoing Congress has to give the minority party a say, now, today. Anything else benefits the Democrats, and then the Democrats can do the same beginning in January and dare the Republicans to complain. Tactically, the Republicans have to appear gracious and civil and cooperative and willing to work with the Democrats now - which they were not as recently as yesterday at lunch.
"voted not to convice"
Dammit.
Not to CONVICT. My browser at the office is IE so no spellcheck. For those that don't have it, download the free Mozilla Firefox 2.0 - it has spellcheck that works in text boxes like this one. The tabbed browsing is cooooooolllll. It is freaking awesome.
I have to disagree; Clinton's actions hardly warranted impeachment, because they in no way rose to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. The whole meme that it was 'not about sex, it was about perjury' is a GOP canard. Clinton's 'lie' did not endanger our nation; it did not weaken our Republic.
Likewise, I don't consider the most recent 'lie' by Bush concerning Rumsfeld to be of as serious a nature either. Yes, he misled the nation (what else is new), but Sec Def is a cabinet level appointment, as such it is Bush's prerogative to fill it in whatever manner he sees fit, assuming the Senate goes along.
Bush's lie is comparable to the college football coach at a press conference who swears up and down he is not in discussion for the job at a rival school, and then bolts for that school a few days later.
I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Bush has committed numerous impeachable acts; he has seriously transgressed his authority and flouted the Constitution, showing contempt for it and our most fundamental principles as a nation. These actions certainly amount to 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.
I disagree as well about your excusal of Bush's lie. College footbal coaches are not in the awesome position of President of the United States. Losing a football game is the worst a coach can do. The president must see that our laws are well and faithfully executed and see to our national defense - our very survival. Again, if we would kick out a West Point cadet for using a fake ID because it is a lie (and we would) why should we excuse Mr. Bush for lying to the American people about a pivotal decision regarding a war, a decision impacting our troops on the field of battle, only days before an election. Why do you expect more from a teenage cadet at West Point or Annapolis, why do you expect more honor from a Second Lieutenant commissioned the day before yesterday, but forgive Mr. Bush for lying to the People?
Were Mr. Bush to lie about a football game your argument might be stronger, but he lied about what he was planning to do regarding Mr. Rumsfeld only days before the election - in short, he lied to gain votes he would not have recieved if he told the truth - and that more important than a football game, it is the life or death of this republic at stake.
It is Mr. Bush's perogative, as you say, but he should be held to account for it. ALL of his presidential authority belongs to the people and are delegated by the people to him. He has no authority of his own, it all derives from the consent of the people. That is why lying about Mr. Rumsfeld days before the election is an impeachable offense. If you lied to your boss in order to get the boss to do something that the boss would NOT do if you told the truth, the boss has every right to fire you. Mr. Bush lied to his boss, and in this case it was not about cheating on his wife but about the lives of our men and women in harms' way and about the survival of the republic.
He should be impeached. Will he? No, I can do the math. But he should be.
Gates is no Rumsfeld clone. Far from it. Seriously. And Harkin's criticisms are just that. Harkin's. In what was a very political hearing in 1991. For the record Sam Nunn came out with a stirling endorsement of Kerry today.
But anyway. Basic fact: yes, Gates is an old Bush 1 fan. Hint for the politically illiterate here -- that means that he and Rumsfeld are completely dissimilar. Bush 1 and Rumsfeld have hated each other for 30 years. G.W. picking Rumsfeld was an oedipal figure in the eye to his dad. This is basic stuff. Maybe you shouldn't be opining on politics if you're this ignorant. (I don't have the foggiest clue whether the Gates appointment would be good or bad -- but quoting a Harkin speech from 15 years ago sure doesn't demonstrate anything at all.)
Well, I'm going to disagree with JD here. First, Pelosi should just keep her mouth zipped. She has no say in this matter and all she would do is help confirm many peoples' fears about her: that she is an jabbering, ultra-left limousine liberal who's out of touch with ordinary people. The Democrats aren't out of the woods yet and Pelosi has the potential for doing the party great harm. Further, IMO it would be a profound mistake for Democrats to start piling on while the body is still warm.
We all know Gates's history. Bush family lackey, Iran-Contra sleazeball, etc. He was actually my putative boss when I was a member of the so-called intelligence community and he gets no respect whatsoever from me. I do not want to see him as SecDef. Not only is he a poster child for situational ethics, he is totally unqualified for the job. He should stay with the white glove crowd at Texas A&M and never blight the American public landscape again.
However, the nomination is a fact. Al introduces an interesting thought, that of this being rushed in to take advantage of this dead time before the new Congress is seated. These boys have always been pretty politically astute and I think Al's theory has a lot of merit. Further, the Democrats need to avoid looking like pure partisans by revisiting Iran-Contra, which is only a vague memory to most Americans.
IMO, what the Democratic minority should do is to focus on asking Gates what he will do as SecDef. They should also really hammer him on his opinion regarding the use of DoD assets (NSA) in domestic wiretapping. Further, he should be questioned closely about the activities of the DoD Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), an under-the-radar unit that's been involved in some pretty interesting domestic surveillance activities. He should be questioned as to whether he shares Rumsfeld's contempt for the State Department and as to whether he intends to inject military assets into foreign countries without State Department coordination. He could also be asked about DoD-CIA coordination and whether he believes military personnel should be involved in certain CIA activities.
I think there are a whole bunch of good questions for Mr. Gates.
Nathan - with respect I disagree. I revere Sam Nunn (his grasp of national security issues is sorely missed and I think he would have made a great president. He was one of the best friends the US Army ever had in the US Senate - I absolutely love the guy, one of the greatest Senators in US history) but I think his endorsement is due to the relationship he had with Gates at a time of bipartisan cooperation and relative civility. The times are different now, and Gates' past troubles me greatly. I think he is a Bush II man now or he would not have been picked. I think he will change nothing of substance in the Rumsfeld pentagon, instead it will be smoke and mirrors and more ideological crusading and purging of dissenters. But I sure hope I am 100% wrong.
Gates is on the Baker Commission. That means the Baker Commission recommendations are going to be accepted. Gates/Baker are Bush I hands all the day. This is called calling Daddy to the rescue. I don't see anyway in which that is a bad thing.
And Gates has been out of politics since the days of bipartisan comity. So, no reason for him to have been polluted by Washington since then.
Seriously, don't get all your ideas from DailyKos.
Will Gates be asked tough questions about what he plans to in Iraq? Absolutely. Will he be asked much about Iran/Contra? No. That was done once already. And it would look extremely petty. There's no question that most people would make the Devil SecDef if he could "fix" Iraq. Questioning irrelevant to Iraq will backfire on Democrats.
Publius, please. It's not that those aren't good thoughts, it's that they're horribly naive.
If if I'm Gates and I'm asked: "What do I think about DoD-CIA coordination and do I believe military personnel should be involved in certain CIA activities?"
I'm going to respond: "I am devoted to winning the War on Terror and the DOD, under my leadership, will do everything necessary permitted by law, working with all branches and agencies of government, to effect this. Next question?"
Those are softballs. Kind of like when bloggers' questions were being given to Roberts and Alito. He's going to hit those out of the park.
I also suspect that Gates will be confirmed because the Democrats already recognize that he is a non-issue, a pawn in the game, or in DC zone, a non-player. He is a drone, and I think all of us can agree that he won't be doing anything unless approved by Cheney, or Rice.
Also, I think there are bigger fish to fry, and Gates is not a hill the Democrats will want to die on. They'll let Bush and his old congress slit their own throats with the Gates nomination because there are other battles that must be, and will be fought.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/4/vest-j.html
and this:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7194/iran.html
instead of relying upon stuff you plagiarized from DailyKos.
But maybe on the other hand Nathan is right and it`s daddy to the rescue. How quaint! I suppose there is some benefit to having a `democracy` run by oligarchies.
The other possibility that occurred to me is that Gates knows (or knew) Iran, and their military. If you want to bomb or invade a country, it helps to have someone in charge who is familiar with it ...
(but I am inclined towards Nathan`s view of things).
And yes, Sheerahkan, happy day. There is a fair possibility, I think, that we are about to witness the 2 year twilight of neo-conservatism and this crazy period of US history (unless the Democrats elevate incompetence to a high art).
Nathan, if my hastily drawn up list of questions is naive, please share what you would believe to be appropriate questions. However, I'm kind of at a loss as to why serious questioning about DoD intelligence assets being used domestically would be considered to be naive or softball. Further, I guess maybe you didn't like the DoD-CIA cooperation question. Would it have helped if I'd specified renditions?
Nathan, based on the tenor of your posts, it's my sense you're a Gates man. I don't think anyone's suggested he's a Rumsefeld "stooge." It's more that he's a Bush stooge. ISTM he's just another empty suit and probably the best we're going to see. One bright spot is that Gates has never had the cojones to actually confront or terrorize anyone. Which means the generals will be happy.
"First off, I disagree in part with Publius, and that is that Ms. Pelosi is not savvy enough to realize the politics involved. In fact, I think we all should give her a bit more credit than what is currently being displayed. Anyone who can grab fiscal responsibility, and use it several times in her talk to reporters...oh yeah, give the woman some credit."
Sheerahkahn, reread my post. I wasn't ragging on Pelosi. I have a lot of respect for her and I think she's very savvy. She has, however, been elevated to stereotype status and I think she's aware of that. The point of my post was that Pelosi is the Speaker-in-waiting. As a member of the House, she has no standing in confirmation of administration appointees. If she does flannel-mouth, she's off her own turf and she also runs the risk of stepping on the toes of Democratic senators. That's all I wanted to say.
Ah, nevermind then. You are correct sir, and I think she will not go "blathering" because I think a couple of Senator's will pull her to the side before she gets a chance too.
Nothing is a secret in the Congress, nothing.
The one place where she needs to keep her mouth shut is when she has lunch with Mr. G.W. Bush. Let him talk, commit to nothing he wants to bend her to, and leave the food and refreshments untouched.
election results were a surprise to you because you're an
optimist ? If you were wrong about this, why should
anyone have confidence in your judgment of the situation
in Iraq, where you appear to be similarly optimistic with
even less justification ?
Going forward, Bush is the lamest of lame ducks: Clinton
got along in divided government because he remained
popular with the public and could talk direct to the people
and be trusted. Bush on the other hand, can't use that
approach because the public doesn't like him and doesn't
trust him any more - and with good reason, as his SecDef
flip-flop shows. On top of which, any prominent Republican
with presidential aspirations will be desperate to distance
themselves from him, so he has no political capital even
in his own party.
He deserves impeachment, but it isn't going to happen. But
maybe 2 years as a political leper is almost as good.
I hope the Dems quickly pass legislation which specifically
enumerates a list of forbidden interrogation techniques -
especially waterboarding and cold room - and dares Bush
to veto it. That should put a stop to the tap-dancing on
that issue.
I don't think so - let see sending weapons to the mullahs in Iran so that they would send money to the contras to fight the guy who was just elected the President of Nicaragua. I'm not sure it is a bad idea to remind people of how short-sighted this crowd can be sometimes.
I also think the question for Gates is whether lied to Congress about it. One of his assistants was pardoned by Bush 1 for that crime. Given the questions about how loosely this administration has been with the truth, the guys record on that score is not a minor issue.
The other issue the Democrats ought to explore is his involvement with Saddam and the US tilt toward Iraq during the Iraq/Iran conflict. How much did we know about the use of chemical weapons? What, if anything, did we do to stop their use? There are probably a lot of people, including some Democrats, involved with US intelligence oversight from that period who would prefer those questions remained closed.
But planning a grilling of Gates is one thing. They certainly shouldn't jump up in knee-jerk opposition. If they have concerns they should try to bring them out in the hearings and only very reluctantly oppose his nomination.
On the other hand, the Republicans may try to block anything that might embarrass the President or his nominee. If that happens this could turn into a huge pissing contest over who is doing the confirmation, the new democratic majority or the lame-duck Republicans. The Democrats ought to make it clear that if the Republicans seek to constrain the hearings in any way, they will block the nomination until next year when they can control the process.
There are none. Not when you have someone being questioned who is more skilled at giving answers than the questioners. (Roberts was just an extreme example where he was clearly smarter than the Judicial Committee put together.) The reason why your questions are naive is because the "correct" answers are obvious and not even Rumsfeld would have given the wrong ones. Only in the movies or bad novels does someone actually articulate whatever it is that you want them to articulate.
I'm not a "Gates man"...as I said, I don't have an opinion, other than to say that at this point I don't think the old realpolitik crew coming back in is really a bad thing. This has Baker's prints all over it. And whatever that guy may be, he is ruthlessly competent.
As for Iran/Contra, not only was it too long ago, but the country forgave and moved on a long time ago. It's not like there weren't hearings galore back then. The thing is: Iran/Contra was messed up, but it was the wrong thing done out of patriotic reasons. The country will forgive that, and it did.
Speaking as a Hawkeye well familiar with Sen. Harkin's record, I have to note that he is the Senate's least credible commentator on Iran-Contra.
His personal interest in Ortega to the side, Harkin's view of Gates was a minority position. Walsh never prosecuted him and, more importantly, the Democratic-Party-controlled Senate confirmed him to the position of CIA officer in November 1991, after the Walsh investigation ended. I sincerely doubt that Sen. Harkin's decades-old-allegations over Iran-Contra should be taken as gospel on such a weighty topic today.
And have long since forgotten their forgiveness. The issue is how his involvement in Iran contra reflects on his competence in the current situation. I think an awful lot of people might wonder whether that scandal didn't reflect the same kind of poor judgment that has got us in a mess in Iraq.
Or he was at one time. Its not at all clear that the world hasn't passed these guys by. They are from a time when people in Washington controlled the message. Now they are controlled by it. That is something Rove understands. He has always made sure that the message coming back to Washington was the one Bush wanted to hear.
Link - http://fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/s911104-gates.htm
I have no idea whether or not Gates will be any good as SecDef, but if the CIA had implemented this recommendation would we still have been blessed with 'groupthink'?
Gates is on the Baker Commission. That means the Baker Commission recommendations are going to be accepted. Gates/Baker are Bush I hands all the day. This is called calling Daddy to the rescue. I don't see anyway in which that is a bad thing.
Was waiting for someone to bring up this fact.
It would seem that people on this thread fail to understand the significance of the Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group and how it's going to shape future policy.
I was just as surprised as anyone that Gates would be nominated, but when viewed through the filter of the Iraq Study Group and it's forthcoming recommendations, what we're seeing is a move to have the proper "implementor" in place at the Pentagon.
So now the Democrats have the Senate and the house.. And now they own the problem that they've been so critical about. I'm really looking forward to seeing how well all of these, as yet unrevealed, alternatives are going to pan out.
But I will, once again, leave them with the thoughts of another Democrat who was so upset about their subversive and defeatist rhetoric, he came to the conclusion it was dangerous to our national security to permit them to win..
Orson Scott Card's article
I posted it previously (and somewhat tongue in cheek). But I have to say that I believe his logic is so compelling that I'm damn jealous. I wish I could have written it.
Thanks again Nathan for bringing up the "elephant" in the room.. For all of the brainpower we have out here, sometimes I think most of them can't see the forest for the trees due to their political bias.
I was about ready to start selling cheese to go with the incessant whine being spewn about these threads.
For me, the faces can change, but the problem remains the same, regardless of which party has the majority. So now I'm going to sit back and see what these Democrats bring to the party..
It's going to to get interesting, that's for sure.
Diogenes
Democratic interest, as opposed the the more general national interst), is positioning for the 08 contest.
To that end, I think exposure of the selling of the war, and of how fear has been exploited in the GWOT, to subvert the constitution, and frame things so the opposition can be made to look bad. These are far more important matters, than Mr Gates past indiscretions. In an ideal world they would be fully factored in, and perhaps would be judged serious enough to disqualify him for the position. It just doesn't strike me as the most important battle to be fought right now.
Well, no, they don't. Bush and the Republicans still "own" the problem for the next two years. Bush is still President, still commander in chief and still "the decider". The Democrats now have the responsibility to help and to question carefully the decisions he makes. But they need to make sure he still owns them. The worst thing they can do for the country and themselves is to start to try to replace the President's judgment with their own.
That is largely a political question. The failings in Iraq are the direct result of the choice of leaders the American people made. This is not a legal, government or structural problem, its a political problem.
It seems to me this is part of the political problem which makes future occurrences like Iran-Contra and the war in Iraq likely. There is no real accountability. We prefer to look forward, rather than back. But the result is that we repeat the same mistakes in allowing sharp "operators" to manipulate decisions and duck responsibility.
These "sharp operators", as Mr. Williams aptly calls them, are a large part of the problem in the Whitehouse now and a main concern on this blog. The US doesn't need these people managing things like torture programs ("I didn't know!"), intelligence into foreign nations' weapons ("I didn't know there were none!") or anything more than feeding the dogs at the local police station.
An alternative and more charitable analysis if you're into that sort of thing, is that Gates knew and approved of the scandal but hid it so effectively that nothing could be proven by Harbin or anyone else. In this analysis everyone in the hearings knew he lied but no-one could prove it. This is a man willing to do dastardly things for the US and hide it from teh public in their own interest. The Democrats' job is to determine if they want that sort of "sharp operator" in charge of the US army now.
The alternative argument - that Harbin's criticisms are wrong, Gates was blameless AND Gates is competent, seems a little thin on logic. I don't like even the sniff of this argument at the moment - in most nations of the coalition of the willing right now we have hordes fo politicians running around claiming they didn't know this, they didn't realise that, they weren't aware of the other. That is not what we vote these people in to do, and we didn't vote them in to encourage others to do it either.
We may be about to witness 2 years of ferocious senate inquiries into the war. Had Rumsfeld been around they would have been targetted at him. Maybe 20 years from now people will write that the inquiries were 'overly political,' and dismiss the final reports of the Democrat inquisitors on that ground. But right now, we see those inquiries coming and relish them. No-one watching the debacle of the Iraq war now is going to be suggesting that an assessment like Harbin's issued now about, say, Rumsfeld, is driven by politics - it's driven by a righteous fury at what these idiots have done. The fact that it has to come from his political opponents (as was the case after the Iran-Contra scandal) simply reflects on how chimp-whipped and pathetic the Republican party have become. It doesn't suggest that the criticisms are going to be less valid, because they won't be.
(Which is something we should all remember in 20 years when the next batch of religious fanatic american exceptionalists come along and try to revise the history of the Iraq war so that it was entirely everyone else's fault but Bush's).
(And no, Nathan, I'm not suggesting you're a religious fanatic american exceptionalist. But maybe I'm implying that when you say Harbin was too political you are using one of the tools from the revision toolbox).
This was a 100% political survival maneuver, and I am convinced it was in place well in advance. Had the Dems not done as well, it might very well have stayed on the shelf and we'd have been treated to more or the same for two more years.
Bush's statement that he didn't want to inject this into the elections is telling. We enter an election with the party line of having the "Dream Team" at the helm in the war on terror. Less than 24 hours after the polls have closed, it is now a situation were we could use a "new perspective". The objective is to make it appear as if "the truth changed", not that GWB lies. The mistake, politically, is the speed with which this all happened opened the door to having to admit that it was a decision already in place to use if needed. But then, I am also willing to bet that it was a firing, not a resignation. Rummy's comments with Bush and Gates, as well as his demeanor, were atypical for him, and made me think he was not pleased with his abrupt termination. Funny thing is, Donny, a whole hell of a lot of us are pleased.
We live in interesting times
Al
Semi-interesting question #1: why didn't Bush dump Rumsfeld before the election when it might have done the Republicans some good?
I think the answer to that is that they were afraid it might hurt them more than it would help, and bottom line: these people NEVER admit they are wrong about anything, and they NEVER tell the truth unless it's so FFO that it cannot be plausibly spun or denied.
Interesting question #2: how much influence will Cheney have when the dust settles?
Frankly, I'm not sure this is going to be that much of a change. This new guy is not a defense industry type, so I infer that part of DoD is going to be pretty much bidness-as-usual. This is about tweaking Iraq, and desperation is setting in.
What folks like Diogenes think the Democrats should do is of absolutely no interest at all. There isn't any pressure on the Democrats at all: they have a clear mandate to restore order, and they have the most outrageous crime spree in the history of this nation to investigate. They have a unique opportunity to achieve something historic and positive for this country and the world -- the only way they can screw it up is by selling out the way these Republican gangsters have the last six years.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
The guys were quite interested in the whole affair. The Dems clean conquest of the House and probably win of the Senate was seen as "hope for a better world". Of course, all three are natives of countries that were really invaded, so they have a different perspective of the threat of terrorists than Americans who have been subjected to a spectacular, but one shot attack which had no real direct impact on 99% of the population, other than stiring up anger, then fear.
Hiram, the Dutchman, watched the coverage on CNN and BBC and came to the same conclusion that I had reached. That Rummy's departure was a carefully scripted event that was in the plan book for a while. All three agreed that it does not appear as if Rummy resigned, but was given the gate. Haris has a feeling that Rummy really didn't know it was going to happen so quickly, and thus his somewhat remote behavior at the joint press appearance.
Since they all come from a life of parliamentary governments, the concept of the legislature being one party while the executive another is quite interesting to them. They are relieved that Bush's legislative ability will be greatly diminished, as they just plain do not trust the man.
We finished the harvest and Haris took the olives to the processing plant. Our labors will be rewarded with a couple of gallons of oil, so we will be just about set for the year.
Al
huh? Oliver North didn't work for Gates! WTF are you talking about?
btw, that was fricking Senator Tom HARKIN not "Harbin"...if you don't even know who he was then you really shouldn't be opining on this thread.
Clearly however, Oliver North didn't work for Gates - thanks for pointing out an obvious stupid error. I don't know that that changes a great deal of my point, though - the allegation (which many people don't agree with and which was dredged up from an affair 20 years ago) is that Gates didn't know what was going on when he should have, and I suggested that isn't a very good sign of competence. I think you agree with my point, but don't agree with Harkin, so my point is irrelevant. Right?
Did anyone's TV ads use "reasoned argument"? If they did, they were sure losers. The American people vote entirely on the emotions evoked by the candidates.
I don't. I think the fact that he lied to congress can be made a central issue given the recent past. "The question is did Gates lie to the congress about his activities. The American people have been lied to enough. We aren't going to confirm someone for a responsible position whose past shows his willingness to continue the pattern of lies and misrepresentations that got us into this mess."
The only way Iran contra enters into the discussion is if you want to suggest that he lied to the benefit of the country. I don't think that is a case the Republicans can or will make.
Is the military, which was obviously totally fed up with Rummy, going to put up with anyone who perpetuates the policies?
I doubt it.
I'm liking the way your living.
Nathan,
Wth?
Gates is a non-issue, and it is extremely unlikely the Democrats are going to pick that hill to die on when there are so many other things that need to be done.
As an aside, IF the Democrats were to challenge his nomination, Iran Contra, is extremely important due to Gates fingerprints all over that whole episode.
Just as past performances on the bench determines the suitability of a Judge for SCOTUS, so does past performance determine the suitability of a person for a cabinet position that is as under the microscope right now as the SecDef!
Now, back to reality, Gates is a drone, he will do his masters bidding, and that is about it. He is, for the Bush administration, as safe a bet for nomination as anyone else. Also, there are other things in play which is probably chaffing at lil Georgie's butt right now and I would suspect that most of it has daddy's fingerprints all over it...okay, it's a guess without any substansitive proof. But when Rumsfeld is punted, and Cheney is told to go take an extended holiday...
Anyone who can do that is someone with clout, and power. There is a crop of new players in DC...whether they're old school coming in to salvage the mess that the kids of messed up, or what...but this election just gave them the credit to enact a corrective agenda.
I need to do some digging....
Sheerakahn: um, I've simply been replying to JD's idiotic plagiarism of Kos. JD's a sharp guy, but he's very politically naive.
Probably. The Democrats are known for missing opportunities. Gates provides them with a strategic opportunity to make it clear that things really have changed. That no one is going to rubber stamp George Bushes choices. And they can make that point over his honesty - which is a good opening shot in a campaign to restore integrity to management of the government. Put the Republicans in the position of having to defend lying to congress.
There is a crop of new players in DC
Not necessarily. There may well be a bunch of people who are jumping ship. If you were Rumsfeld would you have hung around for the congressional investigation? The folks that have liked operating in an environment where they had few constraints are not likely to see the last two years of the Bush administration as the place to be. Remember, Gates was offered Negropante's job and turned it down. Adding him to the team is not a change of direction. There is really nothing in Gates background to suggest his compass will point in any direction other than the one his boss tells him it should point.
Remember who we are talking about...Rumsfeld would've taken the Congressional investigation as a challenge and responded with the same bullheadedness that he has incorporated with his demeanor with the press corps. Yes, I fully believe he would've hung around for inquiry.
Which is precisely why he was removed.
"There is really nothing in Gates background to suggest his compass will point in any direction other than the one his boss tells him it should point."
I agree, the question that is nagging me though is who is his "boss"?
Anyway, my point is that there is the power of the throne which we all see, and then there is the power behind the throne. After this election I think...I suspect that there is a new power behind the throne, and that is whom Gates will be getting his directions from as will lil Georgie. I also think Dick "shotgun" Cheney has been supplanted by this new power, whomever it is, and I will not be surprised if he makes an early exit this year due to "health reasons."
You really think Rumsfled wants to debate his policies with the military leaders with the Democrats on defense committees as the referees? He isn't that stupid. He has a lot of enemies and no friends, even among Republicans.
I suspect you are engaging in wishful thinking. More likely is that there are plenty of people looking for greener pastures. That does leave a power vacuum and someone will fill it. But what do you suppose they think they can accomplish in the last two years of a lame duck president? If anyone is in charge it is likely to be Karl Rove plotting the political course for the next President.
He won't offer exiting new policies, instead he will be a soothing janitor/undertaker.
He has to manage a withdrawl from Iraq (in whatever form it takes) while putting down the insurgency in the Pentagon.
This will take charm and humility.
In addition, he has to bury all the bodies and hide enough incriminating evidence to keep the Bush oligarchy afloat.
Don't forget, he is gone in two years!
Ross,
You give him to much credit.
"You really think Rumsfled wants to debate his policies with the military leaders with the Democrats on defense committees as the referees?"
He would've taken the opportunity to explain to them how brilliant his genius is, how it's difficult to herd cats and get competing egos on the same page as his, and then when challenged with past statements and decisions of his he will detail how incredibly dense the Committee is for not recognizing the changing nature of his job.
He is that stupid.
"I suspect you are engaging in wishful thinking."
No, I don't think so. I know the difference between wishfully thinking and what I observe.
"More likely is that there are plenty of people looking for greener pastures."
I need you to seriously think about this statement of yours. What greener pastures do you think exists for Rumsfeld, or Cheney?
Who would want Gonzales as a partner in a law firm?
What think tank do you suspect is desperate enough to have either of those three involved with them?
"But what do you suppose they think they can accomplish in the last two years of a lame duck president?"
I do not think that the new player(s) are interested in bailing out a failed president's domestic agenda, but rather are on a rescue mission to preserve what is left of our military and our economy vis-a-vis our foriegn policy.
"If anyone is in charge it is likely to be Karl Rove plotting the political course for the next President."
I don't think so. I think Karl Rove is now an insignificant player in the White House, but I will grant that he will, more than likely, be part of the "greener pastures" of the RNC.
Anyone who thinks they can deliver money and I suspect they still can. You might think they are fools and knaves, but the reality is that a lot of other people don't. If nothing else, writing ones memoirs would be more interesting that serving the last two years with Bush. In any case, Cheney is going to remain VP for the next couple years.
He would've taken the opportunity to explain to them how brilliant his genius is
I think you underestimate him. Rumsfeld is not a wannabe who would be satisfied keeping the seat warm. He wants to do things. And he had no chance that he was going to be able to do anything except lose fights with his subordinates before congressional committees. He faced two years of humiliation after humiliation and I think he knew that.
I think the time of the parlor politicians running foreign policy is past. There may be some, like Jim Baker, who don't recognize that yet.
But then the inside game at the White House is insignificant. The question is whether Rove is still the strategist people are looking to for 2008. There is no real evidence Rove has lost the Presidents ear.
In fact, Rumsfeld leaving with Gates to be confirmed by a lameduck congress has his fingerprints all over it. As does the Bolton nomination. The radio talk shows are going to be filled with crys of how irresponsible the Democrats are in refusing to move quickly to give the President what he needs to protect the national interest, even before they have real control over the congress.
Was I being "idiotic?" I don't think so. Given the reports of secret prisons, torture, Abu Ghraib, cover-ups, and a partisan purge of the officer corps, I think a man with a history of lying to Congress and involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal is not the best we could have as Secretary of Defense. The political implications do not change that fact.
Was I being politcally naive? Probably, it is not my field. Prior to the Bush administration I was fairly apathetic. I served under both republicans and democrats and was pretty satisifed with both. If you went back ten years and asked me who the House minority leader was I would not be able to tell you. I probably didn't know the speaker of the House. I didn't care either.
I am not blindly reacting to Mr. Gates out of some desire to harm Bush - in fact, I think it is likely to damage the democrats and present an opportunity for Bush to paint them as vengeful and uncooperative. I am questioning whether he is the right man for a very important job at a time of crisis in my beloved Army and our great nation. Your responses, and the response of many in this thread, do nothing to address my concerns.
I admit that I am very happy with the election results. I do not agree, however, that what I write is for partisan purposes. Yes, lots of people appear to like Gates, including prominent democrats. I nevertheless am concerned with his background in Iran-Contra. yes, most Americans don't know what Iran-Contra was, and fewer care. That doesn't alleviate my concerns at all - I am not talking about what most people think or know, I am raising what I feel are legitimate concerns about the man nominated to replace Rumsfeld.
Mr. Gates will have a massive challenge ahead of him - what to do in Iraq, fixing what the last four years have broken, continuing much-needed transformation in order to face the challenges of this century, and repairing the manpower problems in our Army and Marines. It is a critical and important job, one that should be as removed from politics as it is possible to get in a cabinet position. The person in the office of the Secretary of Defense should be beyond reproach, able to work with both parties, competent, and the type of person who corrects problems and confronts issues head-on, a person who puts the national interest above that of his party and his president.
Given what I know, which is the result of about a half-hour on Google and following links from Wikipedia, I do not think Gates is the right man for the job. I did not expect to find issues that concerned me so quickly. I wanted to find out who he was, I wasn't looking for dirt on the man. I found almost immediately that his name came up in relation to Iran-Contra. That concerns me even if most people don't know or care. I do, because I am concerned about our national security and accountability and our national honor - but not because I am in election mode or having a knee-jerk reaction to anybody Mr. Bush nominates. I thought he was reaching out in an effort to build consensus and find a solution to our problems in Iraq, which is very clear in my inital post about Rumsfeld's resignation. I was surprised by what I found out about Mr. Gates, and I was questioning whether he was a good choice.
On CNN this morning I learned that Gates was "investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing" in Iran-Contra. What actually happened was what I quoted, there wasn't enough evidence to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that he lied under oath the Congress of the United States. That is not at all being "investigated and cleared." He wasn't "cleared" at all.
IMO, possible problems should be brought up in the hearings. I know that if I had some questionable history in my past, and were reminded of it -but got the job anyway, that I'd be really careful to watch my actions to avoid repeating similar offenses. One can only hope that he has that much professionall integrity.
I suspect he was brought in as cover for implementing the recommendations of the ISG, of which he is a member. I am not surprised this administration would nominate someone with a questionable history. He will still be an improvement over Rumsfeld.
What you quoted is what one (strongly Ortega-supporting) senator said happened, summarizing two witness's testimony. Of course, it wasn't enough to warrant prosecution, or to stop the Democratic-Party-controlled Senate from confirming him to run the CIA. Why the rush to embrace the allegations and characterizations of Senator Tom Harkin, of all people?
After all, JD, I thought you were averse to cherry-picking evidence. Aren't you at all concerned that you're only seeing the evidence that supports your prejudices?
Just because Harkin used rabid language and supported Ortega doesn`t mean he was wrong. If he was wrong then his support for Ortega could be the reason, but it doesn`t work the other way. And no-one here has presented any contrary evidence (which I admit is asking a bit much 20 years after the fact about claims of the sort Harkin made).
Also there is the small fact that Gates` 1987 nomination was withdrawn before the inquiries, giving him 4 years to develop amnesia.
Sheerahkan, I think you are being waaaaaaaaay too optimistic about the reason for Rumsfeld getting the boot. But I do like your characterisation of him at a senate grilling. Whole books could be filled with the kind of rubbish language he would use...
That is pure nonsense. You are throwing around more baseless claims to go with your plagarism charge. I challenge you to find a single "Ortega-supporting" statement from that time by Harkin. In fact, I doubt you can find one that is even half-way complimentary.
The reality is that Gates did mislead congress, the only question was whether he did it deliberately. And there was not enough evidence for that to get a criminal conviction.
The other reality is that the Senate confirmed him as CIA director even after that. While the Senate was in Democratic hands, it appears that a majority of the Democrats voted against his confirmation. He was confirmed because Republican Senators supported a Republican president's nomination.
It also appears that at least some Democrats were pleased with the way he did the job. So the question is whether his performance answered the serious reservations that among Democrats that existed before he was confirmed.
Of course, the other question is whether he is qualified to be Secretary of Defense having spent most of his life on the civilian side of intelligence.
We Iowa Hawkeyes have long memories on this one.
That picture shows him shaking hands - there are plenty of pictures of Nixon shaking hands with Kruschev, does that make him "strongly Khrushchev-supporting" vice-president?
You are a partisan hack and you have no evidence to support your claim. You are just repeating Republican talking points from right-wing blogs.
We Iowa Hawkeyes have long memories on this one.
Very long. How old were you when that picture was taken? Did you see the ones of Bob Dole taken in Nicaragua a few days earlier?
Let's recap: In April 1985, in the face of major legislative debate on the Nicaragua issue, Sen. Harkin (w/Sen. Kerry) traveled to Nicaragua, where they held private meetings with Ortega, and negotiated an agreement under which the US would not support the Contras. They returned and announced that Ortega was now solidly neutral between the US and the USSR, and they commenced to oppose US efforts to promote democracy in that nation. This effort was denounced not only by Republicans (primarily the Secretary of State) but also by such Democrats as Christopher Dodd.
Nice try on the "right-wing blogs," but I didn't need them. True, I was only six years old at the time, but I was politically knowledgable by the time I reached junior high, when the Harkin incident was still fresh in memory. I first found that photograph years ago.
But listen, if you want words, how about these from US News and World Report (4/1/1985):
Or from the Washington Post (4/23/1985):
I'd say that Harkin was a pretty strong supporter of Ortega against US support of the Contras. (Care to point me to comparable language from Sen. Dole?)
Let's not run around calling people "partisan hacks." My political affiliation today is the result, in part, of Sen. Harkin's work in the 1980s, not the other way around. He was dead wrong about Ortega back then (as even Sen. Dodd pointed out, in colorful language at the time), and -- to return to my point -- he's the least credible Senate critic of Robert Gates, yesterday and today.
But if this partisan hack recalls correctly, Nixon's support of Khrushchev didn't extend quite that far.
So pictures speak 1000 words, except when they don't. You can find a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam too, I guess that makes him a "strong supporter" of Saddam? He cer