There is no doubt Gates is a charter member of the neocon club, mirroring throughout his career the agendas of such neocon organizations as the Committee on the Present Danger, from whose ranks were drawn many of the so-called "analysts" who concocted faked intelligence on the Soviet Union, Iran-Contra, Iraq and more recently, Iran and the United Nations.

If Gates had done exactly the same things he's done, except on behalf of a foreign power, he'd be sharing a cell with Aldrich Ames today.

Gates is exactly the kind of unscrupulous ideologue we DON'T need in a position of power.

Nice post on prewar intel.

Of course it was severly flawed. It's nice to see someone go beyond that though and get to the details.

I wanted to show you another piece about prewar intel involved newly elected Democrat Congressman Chris Carney.

"What does Congressman-elect Chris Carney (D-Pennsylvania) know about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?"

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/12/what_does_congressman_elect_ch/

I think that the title of this article is much more drastic than the facts presented within. From the title, and description I was expecting a report of Gates' involvement with pre-war intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. However, the facts presented are somewhat less dramatic.

While failing to be accountable for mistakes made under his leadership is troubling, there is no evidence presented indicating that Gates politicized the data passed up to his political bosses. This lack of accountability, however troubling, is a symptom of an increasingly entitled elite within American society. Instead the focus should be the chasm between this thinking and that which brought us practices such as "stove piping".

I think it crucial to consider that despite the Dems recent ascension to relevance in Washington, the president is still a Republican, and the vice president is still a neocon. While it is a sad comment on the state of government in America, perhaps the nomination of a reasonable candidate for this post should be considered a victory.

The problem with filling these positions is finding someone who isn't tainted politically, or in some other way, but still has the background. Most recently, it was the General who now leads the CIA.

If Gates had not chosen to be in the Iraq Study Group, I think it would be a different matter. This way he was privy to information not spun by the administration, generals, or government bureaucrats. (Bolten, however, is another matter.) A relationship with Baker, given his ascendancy, doesn't work against him either.

With the cards now on the table, the Dems most telling action is which ones they pick up. Taking a pass on Gates may show the kind of discretion that pays dividends later. The mere fact that he is not a member of the inner circle, such as it is or was, may be all that is necessary to facilitate the fall of Bush's shaky deck.

I have never seen anything quite like the Robert Gates nomination. The man is unqualified for the job he will be assuming. He has a dirty past so wide it would take a truckload of Fabreze to clean it. The Congress which is being asked to embrace his Iran-contra loving ass is a Democratic one, full of backbone and idealism. And yet, he will be confirmed, for one reason.

He is absolutely loyal to George H. W. Bush. That means that no matter what Dumbya says--for instance, if he gets it into his pointy little head that he wants to "win" this one--Gates' motto will be Papa Knows Best.

I am currently a graduate student at Texas A&M University, Gates' most recent organization post, and one of a growing number that would be described politically as "left" or even "far left" liberal. I am a bit divided about the Gates nomination.

The fact is I came to this school for three reasons: 1) the town is affordable compared to Austin; 2) the program I am in is excellent; 3) the campus is changing rapidly from "neocon fascist training camp" into a more "normal" diversified American university. We can actually thank Gates for the third point.

I don't know what Gates' role in Iran-Contra was, or how he performed his job at the CIA, thus I appreciate the more knowledgable people around here sounding the alert. However, I can comment on his tenure here and say it has all the marks of good stewardship.

Gates' has expanded the faculty, de-emphasized the bureaucracy, remained neutral about athletics while still seeming supportive (which sadly is an absolute requirement in modern universities), and most importantly Gates has taken on directly the racism and general intolerance of the campus and exposed it to the ridicule it deserves, significantly including the actions of the Corps of Cadets. At the same time he has asserted that these centrist views (around here regarded as left-coast liberal) as the correct interpretation of the mythical tradition of "Aggie honor". Here are some examples:

1. An international student was assaulted near the bars adjacent to campus. Gates requests help from the student body in locating the perpetrators, who clearly could not be Aggies because Aggies do not beat fellow Aggies.

2. A racist film is uploaded to YouTube. Gates acknowledges that the film was made by Aggies, denounces them for making a mockery of the spirit of Aggieland, and organizes a public meeting to discuss the film and the overarching issue of racism on campus. The students also "voluntarily" withdraw from campus.

3. Students organize a living wage protest movement. Gates creates a study group to examine the issue, and several months later announces that though some positions will be lost to attrition and not replaced, the rest of the A&M custodial staff will be paid a minimum wage above $7 / hour (which is pretty significant around here).

4. Gates announced shortly after Katrina that students from other universities affected would be allowed to enroll at reasonable tuition rates and given other assistance to keep their academic careers moving along.

These events aren't the kind of life and death struggles that a Cabinet member is judged by, but within the realm of university politics these are still very huge decisions and very inconsistent with the reality-denying neocon worldview. In the 3 years I've been here, I have never seen Gates deny reality or deliberately avoid an issue in order to make the ultra-conservative students happy. Instead he has pushed a vision of the ideal Aggie that is surprisingly similar in spirit to Lyndon Johnson: caring for those in need, upholding a strong sense of fairness over and above someone's background, and in general asserting that the American Dream is not only something that everyone can aspire to, but it is what all good people deserve to enjoy.

Maybe it was all PR. But even then, it was good PR and around here it has made a tremendous difference in loosening the iron grip of reactionary conservatism on the campus culture.

For those who still think Gates is Rumsfeld II, by all means keep finding dirt and throwing it out there. If Gates is really bad news, we need to know.