Some bloggers are questioning the timing of the nomination (and firing), questioning his qualifications for SecDef. I’m wondering about those things myself. I strongly suspect the explanataion may be that he was far from the first choice.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Just to point out a (slightly) contrary opinion, Jack Kelly holds Gates in high regard:
http://www.irishpennants.com/archives/2006/11/donald_rumsfeld.php
Rummy has tried to resign twice before, that I recall, and Bush has stopped him. I think, this time, he waited to see the election returns and if he would need a sacrificial victim. Turns out he did. So be it. I like Rumsfeld, but the planning for the occupation ws poorly done and that was his department.
Mr. Gates was a phenomenal analyst and shooting star (Inman protoge) in the intelligence community before we took our peace dividend, he retired, and they stopped hiring for a decade.
The only defense we have is intelligence, everything else is either punitive offense or palliatives (e.g. TSA and other Maginot-line like defenses which calm our anxieties but do little to reduce our actual risk).
He is an interesting choice. The permanent bureaucracy and services may soon look back on Mr. Rumsfeld fondly. I know the troops will miss Rummy and his habit of visiting with the least-of-them regularly. Mr. Gates would be well served to match him in this regard.
i think he got the job because he is close to james baker, and knows clandestine warfare inside out.
I’m afraid he’s close to James Baker who knows how to sell out the Shia. Of course, that wasn’t all Baker’s fault, but it is interesting that one of the architects of how we got here is supposed to now be some sort of genius savior. James Baker–rinse & repeat. I’m concerned W will become HW.
I am a strong supporter of the President, but I do think that it is entirely fair to be critical of his steadfast support of Sec. Rumsfeld. These sorts of changes DO NOT OCCUR over night. My hunch would be that this change was planned for announcement this day, win or lose for the House and Senate, and that Gates has been lined up for some time.
I was working in the Pentagon in the time of the last super arrogant SECDEF who would tell all who would listen that he was the smartest man in the world.
People who think they have a monopoly on brains are the folks who most assuredly do not.
McNamara was a broken man after Vietnam. And Rumsfeld is following in his steps.
By all accounts Robert Gates is brilliant, but he is also humble. Generals and Admirals do not take kindly to leaders who cannot show at least some humility.
Well, I liked him, I trusted him, and I’ll miss him.
It is of huge concern to me that Gates wrote an article suggesting that negotiate with Iran. Between Rice’s losing efforts at obtaining weak sanctions, and now the choice of Gates, it seems to me that our policy is to let Iran develop nukes, nukes which may ultimately be used to hit us.
“it seems to me that our policy is to let Iran develop nukes” What else can we do, nuke them? Nobody has the guts to even sanction Iran.
I see a very tired President, fed up with all the carpings that he receives in the last 6 years. He is winding down his presidency. When he began, he said he was sent by the American people to get things done, and he wasn’t about to kick the cans down the road for future presidents. Thus he wanted to solve the Social Security crisis, get rid of Saddam. He believed even his enemies would agree those things needed to be done. Alas, he was wrong. Suddenly there was no SS crisis. His enemies rather used them as issues to beat him up with than to get the problems solved.
His ridiculed Left No Kids Behind education reform is actually doing quite well. Even Dem governors are trying out school choices to boost up the kids’ performance. His Medicare Drug Benefit costs less in premiums than predicted, and he introduced private insurance to hold off Dems’ demand for a single payer system. His spending is not that outrageous if you actually look at it in terms of % of GDP. Our GDP has balloned in the last couple of years, the population has grown to 300 million, how can the so-called conservatives expect no growth in spending? Our national debt remains 64% – 65% of GDP, average since WWII. Our trade deficit is not that bad either. If the Chinese want to finance our consumptions, why not let them? It is stupid to believe that the Chinese can control us by threatening to sell our dollars. You know what, if they did that, their reserves will suffer more than we do. They can keep their reserves in Euros which is as save and sound as their Airbus.
I agree, I think Bush is tired. And I’m sorry to see Rumsfeld go, but he was ready to leave, win or lose.
the Americans are not ready to go to war. That’s the bottom line. And they will not do anything real about Iran or Korea until they are hit harder than they were on 9/11. Think. A good half of the American citizenry do not believe there is a war on. We can put part of the blame on Bush, et al. However, this war demands more than leadership. It will mean that the most basic impulse of the Intelligence communities and the Military to keep secrets must be broken. You cannot fight any war in secret, not in a democracy, anyway. Incursions into Mali just will not be supported.
I guess it is time to kick back and enjoy the next two years: John Conyers in charge of Justice will provide endless amusement. The Republicans, I hope, will see this as an opportunity to clean house and figure out what they stand for. The Democrat leaders know what THEY stand for.
This is a disaster, People. Perhaps not for the Americans, yet. But for the rest of the world, it is the 1930s all over again.
ic is dead right. So is heather. Just my two cents.
I think you’re right. The original choice was Harriet Meiers.
As far as the selection of Gates is concerned, there are several factors that probably led to his selection:
- he is known within the Bush administration
- he is known within Congress (which will need to confirm him)
- he is not identified closely with any positions or past actions that would cause a major problem
- he is trusted to be discreet (this move has almost certainly been in the works for weeks, if not months)
- he is willing to take a thankless job that ends in two years
Rumsfeld was a Navy fighter pilot. Gates was an intelligence analyst. There’s a world of difference between those who do and those who watch (like the difference between atheletes and sports writers). I’m not too happy with this selection.
Rumsfeld was the longest serving SecDef in US history, serving in the position twice. He was the youngest SecDef the first time around and the oldest this time. He took on the monumental task of transforming a massive bureaucracy and was making real progress. I hope transformation doesn’t stall at this point.
Sure, there were flag officers who didn’t like him. Flag officers are political creations as much as they are military officers. Each has their “pet rock” program. Rumsfeld killed some of those pet rocks and streamlined some military operations, making quite a few flag officers surplus to our needs. In the military, it’s “up or out” and quite a few people became civilians sooner than they expected. Boo hoo.
Check the footage of how combat military personnel greeted Rumsfeld whereever he went. That should say it all.
I am sorry to see Sec Rumsfeld go.
One of his obvious charms was his ability to keep all those political generals in line. In the pre-Rumsfeld days, you had intra-service rivalry to the point where all the generals were running to Congress behind the Sec Def’s back trying to score points and win contracts for their pet weapons projects. Rumsfeld put a stop to that. The obvious example is Shinseki. No he wasn’t fired–he retired. It wasn’t that he disagreed with Rumsfeld. He did an end run around Rumsfeld by going to Congress and pitting Sen Inouye and Senatorial Democrats against the Defense Dept. That pretty much stopped after Shinseki retired.
Now we will be back to business as usual at the Puzzle Palace with an intel guy as head. Back to the halcyon days of each service acting on its own behalf. It will be interesting to see if the “jointness” concept is scrapped altogether. Not in war fighting but in the procurement area.
As far as Iraq goes, if you want to blame someone for the initial mess, look no further than the State Dept–Colin Powell and Rich Armitage. They put an end to the plan to stand up an Iraqi government immediately using ex-patriot Iraqis to get started. The ex-patriots would have had the advantage of not being current involved activists of any one tribe or militia. But, the State Dept won the debate and installed Paul Bremer. The rest is history.
Mr.Rumsfeld made plenty of enemies in Washington in and out of the military, but he was a fully actualized adult man and he could take care of himself and his people. He was also very entertaining when he took on the Pentagon Press corps with their agendas and lack of understanding of the military.
What worries me the most about Mr. Gates in his new post as Sec Def, is his membership in the Iraq Survey Group run by James Baker.
If President Bush is looking to his Dad’s old comrades to save him in Iraq, we are all in big trouble. James Baker has been tone deaf on the Middle East before and it cost plenty of lives in both Iraq among the Shiites and in the West Bank among the Palestinians when he brought Arafat back into the fold from exile.
No, at least I wasn’t worrying about sitting down and making concessions with Iran and Syria when Don Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon.
Nobody else wanted the job!
Who wants to be testifying day and night for a lame duck presidency?
Make no mistake, the “intelligence” lethargy that helped give us 9/11 will reassert itself i.e. – CYA, don’t do anything that may embarrass the bureau, don’t stick your neck out only to be wakamoled by congress, same at the pentagon.
The dems love hearings, they believe that’s governing – an electoral win will be interpreted as asking them to do just that.
Conyers already conducted a mocked impeachment trial. It may not be impeachment, but the trial was a rehearsal for confrontation.
On C Span last night, Mark MacKinnon, media director of Bush/Cheney relection 2004, stated that the President held off the Rummy termination and the Gates hiring because he did not want to be seen playing politics with the Iraq War. Plausible explanation.
One can well imagine the media apoplexy if he had done a week before the election.
ic, heather are right on with Bush being tired of being beaten up with all the name calling. I’ll add my .02 to buddy’s.
Buckle up for the next two years.
Rummy would no doubt love to see these posts–every human appreciates being appreciated.
I just wonder if the back story of the 06 elections is, sling enough mud, and sooner or later it works, even if only because voters need to somehow stop the mud.
As Rep Dingell said yesterday, “Now all this lack of comity can come to an end”.
You bet, whenever people quit mud-slinging, the mud-slinging stops.
Even I can figure that out.
hey, promoguy–congrats on your gubernatorial! A ray of sunshine in the darkening.
I like the assessment of Sec Rumsfeld by leilani at November 9, 2006 6:32 AM
Too bad Rumsfeld felt no need to cuddle the press corp for insane quastioning, or to charm the beltway establishment. By gosh, he’s got a tough job to do. Those verbal “insults” by Rumsfeld will be missed by this one person.
Both Sec Rumsfeld and GWBush are ahead of their time, imo, like Barry Goldwater. At first I had hope Bush will be Reagan-like, now I think the msm and liberals will make sure his legacy is not Reagan-like.
Bush will go out Truman style. That is, it will take awhile for history to really appreciate him, because we don’t know exactly what will happen in the next 40 to 50 years.
I’m a big fan of Rumsfeld, and still am. With some of the non-entities that we have in political positions, the fact that he was willing to do that job at his age was a big plus for the country.
There is a silver lining on his departure, though. He was gone in two years anyway. He has done most of what he set out to do. When a guy like him shakes things up as much as he has, there is inevitably some resentment–and then retrenchment by the successor. The military won’t throw out *every* lesson they have learned over the last six years.
On the plus side, this leaves Rummy free to run for president in 08. He would be the Republicans best candidate and would almost surely win.
Who could win a debate against him?
Who can out-charm him?
He would make a good president.
“On the plus side, this leaves Rummy free to run for president in 08.”
One can only hope…
I see the free loader is back.
Timing is very good.I also believe that James Baker’s report was the first signal of change.
I believe that US should not only rely on the reports extended by known sources in countries like turkey but also ask for reports from different sources.
I am very concerned about the disinformation being put out over the web about Robert Gates. If you do a search for Gates you will find a list of websites that provide a very flattering picture of this man.
Wikipedia comes first. Although it contains one significant piece of information about why his nomination to be director of the CIA in 1987 (I expect this to be removed soon) it gives him a very easy ride. It is highly significant that the page has been locked and canít be edited (this is highly unusual).
Second is a biography by the Texas A&M University. This does not mention Iran-Contra Scandal or the rejected nomination in 1987. Nor does it mention the huge opposition to him obtaining the post in 1991.
In 3rd place is the BBC site. This is a good example of how his career is portrayed (this was mirrored in the press yesterday).
“Mr Gates’ early career was dogged with controversy, particularly over the Iran-Contra issue, and his first nomination as CIA director was withdrawn by Ronald Reagan in 1987ÖBut the most controversial moment in his career was the 1982-86 period when he rose through the CIA’s top echelons to become acting director. As such, he was in a position to know about the so-called Iran-Contra scandal, which involved the illegal diversion of funds from the sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras, who were fighting against the left-wing Sandinistas who had taken power in Nicaragua. Mr Gates was investigated by the office of the independent counsel in 1991, but was never prosecuted for any offence.”
The BBC does not refer to what Lawrence E. Walsh, the Independent Counsel who investigated the Iran-Contra case, actually said about Gates.
Walsh discovered that Gates repeatedly gave inaccurate information about what he knew about Iran-Contra. When other officials provided contradictory information Gates was forced to admit his mistakes. He claimed these mistakes was due to a failure to remember correctly what happened. Walsh admits in his report:
ìLike those of many other Iran/contra figures, the statements of Gates often seemed scripted and less than candid. Nevertheless, given the complex nature of the activities and Gates’s apparent lack of direct participation, a jury could find the evidence left a reasonable doubt that Gates either obstructed official inquiries or that his two demonstrably incorrect statements were deliberate lies.î
What the BBC report does not mention is that lying about what he knew about Iran-Contra was not the main reason Reagan had to withdraw Gatesí nomination. The main concern of the Senate Intelligence Committee was the information that Gates was suspected of passing information from classified documents to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
In other words, Gates was suspected of treason. It is one of the great ironies of history that he has been appointed to solve the problems of the invasion of Iraq, when on a previous occasion, as a consequence of a secret arms deal, that Gates was passing secret information obtained by the CIA to Saddam Hussein.
Even when his nomination by Bush of Gates was accepted in 1991, he received 31 negative votes, more than all of the votes against all of the CIA directors in previous history.
In his memoirs Gates admits it was a great shock to him that three men who worked in the CIA with him testifying against him. He considered two of these men as personal friends. Melvin Goodman, recently explained his reasons for taking this action: “Bob Gates, over the period of the 1980s, as a deputy for Intelligence and then as a deputy to CIA director Bill Casey, was politicizing intelligence. He was spinning intelligence on all of the major issues of the day, on the Soviet Union, on Central America, on the Middle East, on Southwest Asia. And I thought this record, this charge, should be presented before the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
As Goodman remarked when he heard the news about his 2006 nomination: “I think there is a rather delicious irony in the fact that here is a nation that went to war with politicized intelligence, and now itís naming as a CIA director someone who was the most important practitioner of politicized intelligence in the history of the CIA. So, as Yogi Berra would have said, ìThis is deja-vu all over again.î
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MDgatesR.htm
If you read NovakÔøΩs article you’ll get the impression that Gates might not be qualified, and Bush may prefer it that way. It’s quite obvious to me that Bush only wants someone who will push forward with his personal agenda… and Gates may just be the perfect guy for the job.
http://www.bobgates.net/index.php/2006/11/09/will-lack-of-experience-be-a-problem/