Robert Gates obtained unanimous support in committee yesterday after a day hearing that had even some vehement Bush opponents impressed. Now, some are probably less so, believing that he voiced various obvious things* (e.g., invading Iran should be the last resort ... hmm, I think that was said about Iraq too, wasn't it? Bush really wanted peace. Remember?) that doesn't really tell us much. These naysayers, spoilsports you might say, also like to remind us that he was involved in twisting the facts to fit the policy (déjà vu) back in the 1980s. The sort of thing that made people oppose him for CIA chair, including some still in the Senate, and voting for him this time around. Let bygones be bygones.
This sort of thing was seen during an analysis program that aired yesterday. Both sides had a point. It simply is wrong to ignore Gates' past. Clearly, he was brought in as a tool for the administration and his past actions in a similar role is quite relevant. And, a quick day hearing in which there is no dissenting voice has the feel of a whitewash, even if a few real questions were raised. But, let's be honest here. Who exactly do we expect to be chosen? The buck eventually doesn't stop with Gates. And, to the extent he has shades of some realistic tendencies, one can hope Gates will do a shade of good.
Administrative officials are not totally fungible -- especially these days, they have limited discretion, the buck stopping elsewhere. As should our ultimate ire. All the same, they do have some discretion, especially day to day. This is partially why Gates' former lies in promotion of policy matters -- the critic on the radio show was somewhat ridiculed for expecting morals and ethics in governmental officials, but there are degrees here. Yes, even among Bushies. The hope also is that the message of the election plus the reality on the ground (e.g., troops will get out, push comes to shove, even if Bush doesn't want to admit it) will force the administration's hand. This was shown before. Gates, by replacing Rumsfeld, will be part of this move toward some credible policy. That is if "solution" seems too optimistic.
Others are less hopeful. They see the administration as basically hopeless and new blood not really mattering. In fact, this particular new blood might just worsen things, especially given his past ability to twist reality in promotion of his boss' visions. Perhaps, his apparent competence vis-à-vis Rummy would also be a problem, since who wants competence when the aim is to further bad policy? I still do not think it possible, or advisable, to stick with bad personnel no one really wants. So, we are stuck with a Gates type person, and putting aside the sad fact that there was not enough vetting (or underlining who this person is), I am not sure if there is a better choice.
[If this is but the "end of the beginning," is that not something? Not much, I know, nothing to be gleeful about, or anything, but we are stuck with it. Take small favors, demand more.]
You know, likely to be chosen. We might go down the same path when Bolton's replacement comes into view. It is rather depressing. This can be said, to end with the critics: if we are stuck with such people, Democrats should not just allow them to come in mostly via a cakewalk. The 24-0 committee vote and quickie confirmation (the two nay votes were Republicans, one the lame duck from PA!), even with the sad realism that I suggest above, rankles.
---
* The source today tossed in a personal post on depression that is typically powerful.