« Veteran voices in the blogosphere | Main | In which Meet The Press drives me to drink »

November 11, 2006

Gates Appointment Displeases Many

Several people over the past two or three days have written about Robert Gates, whom the President has chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld. Some of what they say contradicts what Robert Parry had to say, particularly with regards to his involvement in Iran-Contra. No one seems particularly thrilled about it, even though their reasons differ wildly, but one thing seems clear: no matter how you look at it, his appointment is significant.

The Hill is reporting that Republicans are seriously angry at the President for dumping Rumsfeld immediately after the election. If you believe this is because they support Rumsfeld and the war and feel the President is caving in to Democrats, you would be wrong. The reason they are angry is because the President said he was committed to keeping the GOP in the majority, and getting rid of Rumsfeld before the election could have helped Republicans win. Bush's apparently speedy selection of Gates – announcing Gates's appointment and Rumsfeld's resignation just half an hour after Nancy Pelosi called on him to do so as a gesture of cooperation with Democrats - could not possibly have been so speedy; therefore, they ask, why did he wait and allow Rumsfeld to continue to damage their re-election chances? Some have gone so far as to say Bush was more interested in protecting himself than in protecting the majority.

Gerald F. Seib blogs at the Wall Street Journal about what he sees as a conflicting viewpoint on Iran between Gates and the Bush Administration. Gates has a history of pushing for dialog with Iran, rather than the more aggressive approach pursued by President Bush. Seib's article provides links to a 2004 report by a task force Gates chaired that said America's interactions with Iran had harmed our interests, as well as to excerpts of Gates's writings on Iraq, Iran, terrorism and intelligence.

FrontPage Magazine says the claim that Gates was involved in Iran-Contra has never had much of a foundation, and that evidence of any direct role by him is "conspicuously lacking." It also says Gates "specifically distanced himself" from support for the Contra rebels, saying that our involvement there would destabilize Central America. The article also looks at Gates's task force report on Iran, and says the report's conclusion, calling for "constructive dialogue," is contradictory with the report's acknowledged facts about Iran. Chiding Gates's status as a "realist," the article also notes that the report holds the "fatalist assumption" that nothing can prevent Iran's nuclear program, and then goes on to say Gates's addition to the cabinet is "the most serious threat to the Bush administration’s muscular foreign policy."

Will Republicans who are angry at the President for stubbornly holding on to Rumsfeld for so long and who believe Gates will be responsible for a policy of appeasement of Iran vote to support his appointment? Will Democrats who believe, rightly or not, that Gates was an insider in Iran-Contra support his appointment? Will Americans who have been duly terrified by Iran's nuclear intentions and equally exhausted by war and death support a softened approach toward Iran – one that even Gates compares to Clinton's approach ten years ago to North Korea? What does Papa Bush's insertion of Gates and his old friend, James Baker, to the current political situation say about his opinion of the foreign policy job his son is doing? Interesting questions, all – and I do hope the answers don't get lost in the midst of all the forthcoming subpoenas and investigations of corrupt Republicans. Something tells me this appointment, and its timing, has significance. I would like to know what that significance is.

Posted by Becky at November 11, 2006 03:40 PM