"Democrats Cave on Gates Nomination" by Robert Parry. Agree/Disagree

Here is Robert Parry's article from Consortiumnews.com-it is a short read.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/120506.html

There has been much debate here about the nomination of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld, and many Democrats made many statements related to the civil war in Iraq and what the role of our troops should be, if any.

Do you agree or disagree with this article, the title of which is very straightforward?

Why? It's pretty simple.

1. Bush is not likely to nominate a moderate, let alone a liberal as Def Secy.

2. There is a unwritten rule in the Senate that a President should get the cambinet of his choosing.

3. There is no guarantee that Dem blocking this nomination won't have us Democratic activists up in arms about the replacement as well. In fact, it is likely that we will *never* get a Def Secy nominee from Chimp who won't find bad.

What do you do in this situation if you are a Senator on the committee? You ask pointed and direct questions to get things on the record. Then, you let the nominee pass.

I don't like it any more than anybody else does here, but it's probably the best way to handle it, all things considered.

Bunch of dumb asses let another one slip into high office. As long as there are still trillions of dollars missing from the budget, no one should be allowed to get in unless they pledge to find our damn money!

They knew that Gates was the best they were going to get from these kooks. The question is, why don't you understand this?

I don't like Gates any more than you do. I just have my eyes open to the fact that he's about the best we can expect from these ideologues.

We could get a *lot* worse than Gates.

Gawd damn you have low standards!

They are robbing you blind, killing our finances and our soldiers and all you can say is that is the best to expect? Shit, no wonder we're fucked!

This is a cabinet appointment. Generally, the Senate defers to the President in these matters since they understand what you apparently do not. That it would take extraordinary circumstances for the Senate to refuse a President's nomination for his own cabinet. How many times has that happened in the over two centuries of this country?

A judge appointment is different. There, we are talking about a Constitutional issue since the Judiciary has oversight on both the Legislative and Executive branches. You see, the reason why Gates is getting a pass is that there are other ways for Congress to control the Executive than to insist that a liberal be appointed to the cabinet.

This is all about Constitutional separation of powers. It's an important issue, full of subtleties. I am very liberal. However, if I were a Senator, I might also give Gates a pass. He's probably the best we'll get from Shrub.

The Dems were just told the people want change. These Dems didn't have to vote for Gates, but they did, they caved. They could have sent a new message, but no. They kissed ass, again!

Thanks for your little lesson there, longship. I don't need it, but maybe there is someone here who did.

but he's not incompetent, not obviously unhinged, and not an in-your-face choice like Bolton. Apparently he had some knowledge of Iran-Contra but AFAIK was not part of the plot itself. So I would give him a pass. The most important thing is to have an experienced hand on the wheel and to keep everything from falling apart until 2009.

Joe is sounding like a neocon true believer and seems to have blinders on about Israel.

the role of Kissinger Associates and quite a few other things.

I'm glad you brought Iran/Contra up.

The late Democratic Congressman from Texas, Henry Gonzalez wanted to impeach 41. Rep. Gonzalez had this entered into The Congressional Record-it is pertinent to today.

Kissinger Associates, BNL, and Iraq
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1991/h910502g.htm

Simultaneous to BNL was BCCI and Kissinger Associates-Iran/Contra again, and Mr. Gates was prominent.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/20kiss.htm

I hope these links are educational for anyone that would be interested as to why Robert Parry authored the article used as the basis for this poll. Mr. Parry was instrumental in research and continuing investigation of Iran/Contra and other historical events around it.

I'm very biased, voted a straight Democratic ticket a month ago and am not happy with the nomination or the behavior of the Democratic Senators on the Committee-to put it mildly.

He's not a nut in the Rumsfeld/Bolton mold and he is far from incompetent. I don't agree with him about much, but I can feel reasonably comforatble saying he's competent.

"For instance, there was no reference at the hearing to a 1995 affidavit from Howard Teicher, one of Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council aides, who placed Gates in the middle of operations to arrange third-country weapons for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

"The effort to arm the Iraqis was “spearheaded” by CIA Director William Casey and involved his deputy, Robert Gates, according to Teicher’s affidavit. “The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

Right now in my mind there is one and only one qualification that is really important to me for the next Secretary of Defense: Can he or she actually perceive some of the reality of the Iraq fiasco and can they get George W. Bush to face that reality and not make it worse during the time he has left in office? My plan is to replace this entire Administration with a Democratic one in two years. Till then I would like fewer tens of thousands to die inside Iraq and less new wars to start up than seemed likely under the previous influence of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

If Gates is the guy who can swing the balance of power inside Bush's Administration away from Cheney, I will live with him until we can get rid of all of them. Gates is Daddy Bush's man. Many of Daddy Bush's team opposed the neocons. Daddy Bush knew enough to not depose Hussein after the Gulf War. If anyone can pull W back from the brink, in my opinion, it will have to be some old and trusted Bush family friends, who paranoid W might actually be willing to believe are not simply out to get him. The traditional Bush Cartel are not exactly my favorite people, but they have their work cut out for them now to moderate the neocons until the 2008 election.

favorite people..." Tom. That sounds like recognition of the BFEE.

But the Democrats caved on Gates and it's still BFEE as far as a lot of US that voted them in are concerned-our votes, despite everything else, were to change policy, withdraw from Iraq and hold the criminals accountable for what they've done.

So with SecDef Gates we get the Iran/Contra's instead of the neo-cons-it's still BFEE and they are being confronted but not by the "choice of the lesser of two evils".

Can't be any more specific about that confrontation today, but it involves the US Constitution as the rallying point here in HOMELAND (TM).

edited for spelling

That's what Wes Clark says, I heard him say it in person, and I believe him. Before the elections he said Condi Rice, of all people, was the only significant inside player who still had reservations against that, but not firm ones. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the steamroller that ran over Powell, who certainly doesn't wear a white hat in my book but at least he wasn't a card carrying neocon military expansionist either. Before the Election Clark figured the odds such an attack would happen before Spring at over 60%. The odds, from our perspective, have imporved somewhat because of the Democratic victories, but we are not out of the woods until Bush is out of the White House.

I know that there are those who think Bush couldn't possibly agree to an attack on Iran's nuclear facillities now, but I don't put anything past him. The reprocussions of an act like that would in the long run, IMO, exceed the negative consequences of the U.S. invading Iraq. I think we have a fighting chance, with a Democratic Congress now able to hold hearings and investigate, to defend our Constitution over the next two years. But Bush can at any moment issue an executive order to send bombers into Iran, and Congress can not stop him from doing that IF Bush is determined to do that. Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan against Bin Ladin without a War Resolution.

So I want someone as SOD who can stand up to Cheney. If we get that instead of Rumsfeld, I consider it a net gain.

Bush is not going to put Dennis Kucinich in there and I'm not even sure I'd want him to. We got rid of Rummy and Gates is no Rummy. Can we be happy and proud for 2 fucking minutes?!?!?!

days about a month ago. That has passed.

I'm not sure who you are refering to in regards to "We got rid of Rummy..."

eom

It mentions nothing about Dennis Kucinich.

It does do a good job, however, of pointing out the failure of Dems on the Senate committee to do what they said they were going to do.

They didn't stand up for the majority of US voters. They didn't ask the difficult questions. They didn't demand the difficult answers.

Why?

for the crimes he has participated in the past.

i agree, we are not going to get a good or more palatable nominee from bush so they might as well confirm this one but not to call him on what he has done or ask tough questions on what he will do is shameful.

And while I'd love to see him getting a well deserved smack-down by Senators for his past crimes, Iran-Contra was 20 years ago and it's hard to use that as a reason to block him.

why even bother with the hearing then?

to cover-up their crimes. Mr. Gates, among other "skillsets", has a proven record of politicizing and cooking intelligence for his BFEE masters that has been remarked upon throughout his career.

God only knows what he really will do in the angry, reactionary post-Rumsfeld politicized DoD.

Taking an oath is nothing to this crew, Iran/Contra demonstrated that (North, Poindexter et al).

This should have been nonpartisan, the Rumsfeld DoD network's legacy is nefarious- we've got mercenaries, torturers, war profiteers, slavers and worse--and now Mr. confirmed SecDef Gates is going to Iraq to use his "skillsets".

In short, a lot of real questions weren't asked of the "new" SecDef Gates by Democrats that should have followed up on their promises brought about by an accurate reading of what motivated the people November 7th.

Security Archive. More on Iran/Contra.

"The Robert Gates File"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB208/index.htm

Rumsfeld wasn't doing anything that Bush/Cheney/Rove/PNAC didn't want to happen anyway!

Rumsfeld was just "a bag man for the boys downtown".
(A reference to The Verdict, a great movie)

Rummy's gone. That is indeed a good thing.

Gates knows he's going to be watched very closely. Yes, he got a free pass from his Iran-Contra past, but he did have to snub his nose in the dirt to get the gig. And he has already stated that the Occupation is going badly, which goes directly in the face of Chimp's "policies".

We'll see how all this plays out. Gates can gain some creds like Colin Powell has recently by speaking truthfully about how screwed up the Occupation is. It might be part of The Chimp's eventual undoing if Gates has to face him down and The Chimp pulls a Nixon...

Either they started a major battle, which would not help anybody and certainly not the troops, or they gave Gates to Bush and hoped that, at the very least, he would be less idiotic than Rumsfeld, even if they did not have a lot of illusions.

At the very least, they voted for somebody the ultras like Santorum and Bunning find too moderate and too ready to speak with Iran. Given that Bush was not going to name Clark, Webb, or Murtha as SecDef, you go with what you can have. Few people protested. Even Harkin, who voted against Negroponte, voted for Gates.

They could have stood on principle and discussed the real issues related to this mess. Even if they had lost, they would have done the job we expected of them - to bring the real facts and arguements about Iraq into public discourse.

I, for one, can't understand why they chose to go mealy-mouthed and keep quiet.

I think they all need to be replaced on the committee. While that's not possible, Reid needs to grow a spine and put a better committee together in January.

The future of our country depends on it, and I'm not overstating the case. Business as usual on this issue is going to be disaster for the US.

extra-constitutional dealings in this country in the last 30 years. Why should we now trust you with the lives of our soldiers?"

Would that have been so hard?

I don't care for Mr. Gates at all, but there was no point in leaving the Pentagon rudderless for months with no prospect of a better choice being at hand. If Gates was refused, we might get Bolton instead, for example. Meanwhile the mess in Iraq needs a guiding hand.

There's no excuse for Dems to refuse to show spine and bring out important issues about Iraq for public discussion. They didn't have to block the appointment, but they sure as hell could have lodged a protest vote and made him discuss Iraq honestly.

Should be plenty of public discussion. Let's not start teeing off on our Reps unless they drop the ball when they get control of Congress. Gates is a secondary issue, IMHO.

considered candidaets for the cabinet.

because they never put up a fight in the first place.

"Constitution Takes a New Hit From Senators at Gates Hearing"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120706J.shtml

we could have expected much better from Bush.

As others have stated, the old Bush gang may not exactly be neocons, but are a nasty crowd in their own light. While I wouldn't go so far as to call Gates competent, I seriously doubt he could be as incompetent as the psychopath that held the office the last six years.

While I would have preferred a better investigation and query into Gates' past (including his record on Iran-Contra), I understand the urgency with which Dems wanted Rummy out.

Wasn't it Jon Stewart that had the question "Are you or have you ever been Donald Rumsfeld?".

That's all it came down to. ABR.

I never noticed any resistance, hence they can't have "caved"

and the tongue-washing they gave him was really depressing. After the election results, where 56% voted Dem, I thought they would start ravaging everything that Smirk said and did. Instead, they just waved this guy through. If they continue this pattern, they'll be back in the minority in 2009.

NOT! Look, I realize that the Dems weren't going to stop Gates, but damn, they could at least make a show! What, they didn't get the hint a month ago that the American people are fed up with the war, Bush, and everything about this administration? One would think that after the American public gave them a spine transplant, ie handing them both houses of Congress, along with the governors race, they would stand up once more and be the Opposition Party! But noooooo. They continued to hem and haw and let the bloody handed Gates go through with nary a peep.

You know, a month ago I was feeling optimistic, there was grand talk of great deeds in the air, a battle to roll back the madness and restore sanity in this country. Now, not so much. And actions such as this just don't bode well in my eyes.