Mr. Gates’ appointment seems to be an unimaginative move by the Bush administration. It is foremost a political arrangement. Gates has shown to be a loyal soldier, ready to circumvent the law to provide a desired political outcome. One should not expect more from Mr. Gates than to follow orders and handle the press in a manner that Mr. Rumsfeld could not. This polish has been seen during the confirmation hearings.

A person of vision has a chance to bring some type of closure to the Iraqi situation. A man who states “there are no new ideas on Iraq” is not such a person. A slick loyalist will produce an uninspired performance, but he will placate some with his floor show.

If this guy marched in an anti-Nixon protest while working for the CIA, he was taking notes on what the protestors were saying.

This is also the guy who lied about Iran-Contra before Congress, and earned lasting distrust from Sen. Carl Levin, now abated for reasons I can only hope are based on private assurances.

But here is the slip that tells the tale:

"The United States is going to have to have some presence in Iraq for a long time," Gates said.

He omitted the word "military", but does that mean he's only talking about our ambassador and a bunch of staff trucking on in future years? I doubt it.

And if he is saying that we will have a military presence for years to come, then he has tipped his hand that he is a mole for the neocons, because only they -- not our realpolitikers, not the majority of the American people, not any party in Iraq except the government we installed -- wants us around any longer than it takes to get us out.

The realpolitikers say we should stay long enough to prevent chaos in the region, which is uncomfortably close to the neocons' view that that means forever. But the realpolitikan view must be tempered by the recognition that we have no right to be there at all, one day longer than the people there want us. And they don't, as every poll since the invasion shows. We are to them first and foremost occupiers, like the Brits they kicked out 60 years ago (and we brought back!). And both sides in the civil war now say it's OK -- a patriotic duty, in fact -- to kill Americans, and they do.

We may yet bring peace by doing the deal that the neocons have resisted, in which we THREATEN to leave in order to get the Shiites to be fair to the Sunnis. This advice was first given publicly by former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak right after our invasion, and was most recently ignored when the neocons killed such a deal two months ago. But as the Shiites become stronger (either the central government's forces or Sadr's), our bargaining power diminishes. It may be too late already.

And in that case, our presence will mean only taking daily hits from the two sides of the civil war. This is intolerable, as is sending in enough additional troops to quell the civil war.

So will Gates play Clark Clifford to Bush's Johnson, and quickly press the peace deal, or will he merely put a new coat of paint on the old bus, which will keep rocking along until January 20, 2009? Stay tuned.

Barely a month after an election result that, above and beyond everything, constituted a rejection of Bush's militarist quagmire in the Mideast, a perfunctory and bi-partison virtual love fest ensues for Bush's preferred new military face on the Mideast catastrophe. The admission by Bush's nominee of the disaster faced by US imperialism is, in and of itself, hailed as a major breakthrough constituting more than sufficient rationale for the former central Iran Contra affair figure to obtain unaminous Democratic party.

So much for 'democracy' and 'elections.' Barely a month after an election outcome that put the Democrats in power in the next Congress, the Democrats unanamously show themselves to be the posers they are as they once again display their absolute dedication to Bush's Mideast cause and to be the right wing's most important and critical political prop - outside of the liberal media establishment, that is.

No admission of the criminal intent of the enterprise or even any pretense of drawing down forces any time soon is necessary for the unanimous support of the 'opposition party.' All those who voted for the Democrats based on opposition to the war in the Mideast are effectively disenfranchised, and it did not take the Republicans to do it. The Democrats have once again already capitualted.

Wall Street no doubt greatly appreciates the Democrat's bi-partison efforts. As for the American people, let them eat cake. They simply have no influence within a system that, for all practical purposes, constitutes a one-party system of a venal, disconnected and walled-in financial elite that calls all the shots while pontificating, along with the corporate media, about 'democracy.'

WIth a democracy like this, we don't need a dictatorship.

Did Siraluce, DouglasWilson, and AGJ just view the same election as me? I guess I missed the part where the Democrats retook the white house, or gained a veto-proof majority in both houses of congress.

Bush is still president, and has repeatedly announced his intention to remain in Iraq through the end of his term. The best we could have realistically hoped for is someone who makes the kind of public statements that Gates made in his confirmation hearings, and we must hope he says the same things to the president in person. Reasonable optimisim at this point would be to hope for some sort of harm reduction. If the administration were a crack addict, we would be at the stage of getting him to admit he has a problem and to think about rehab; asking him to go cold turkey is jumping the gun a little.

It's so pathetic to see liberals gush about so-called "moderate" republicans on talk shows or speeches because they're "so civil." In other words, they are not calling Democrats traitors and worse. Who cares... they go back and vote for the same divisive legislation as the nasty ones.

Gates is no different, just a more canny PR voice in the DOD for the Bush plan to stay there until we "win." The committee hearing was a sham, the Senators satisfied just because he didn't give pushback to their flabby questions.

What we really need to be told, hard as it will be, is that the damage is done. America has lost already, possibly worse than Vietnam. Our military reputation, our international standing, our safety, in fact, is gone, because of Bush and his dirty little war. The damage done to Iraq is incalculable. The longer we stay, the more salt we rub in those wounds.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong, so Bush will never do it. America needs to get the hell out now, but neither the public, nor the Congress will demand it. The next president we elect will have the job of presiding over the end of Bush's Folly.