here's an interesting question. Indeed, why not Warner?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/12/EDG8LM84S31.DTL The departure of Donald Rumsfeld from the Pentagon handed President Bush a precious opportunity to restore the confidence of senior commanders in the administration and send an unmistakable message of bipartisanship to the country. Unfortunately, the choice of Robert Gates as Rumsfeld's successor as U.S. secretary of Defense fails on both counts. Instead of choosing someone whose public record is and appears to be above reproach, the president has nominated a man who is widely regarded within the U.S. intelligence communities as having distorted intelligence during the Reagan administration for political purposes and self-advancement. These are exactly the errors that led to the Bush administration's disastrous engagement in Iraq. While the Democrats, who now control the Senate, too, may ultimately vote to confirm Gates to avoid giving the impression that they put politics ahead of the national interest during wartime, Gates' record makes his appointment controversial, and the confirmation hearings problematic and needlessly divisive. The United States is mired in an unpopular war, and Americans long for an end to the venomous "gotcha" politics of the past decade. That Bush chose to appoint someone such as Gates as his response to these circumstances unavoidably raises another question: Why should political loyalty at the Pentagon be so highly valued? The one attribute beyond doubt is Gates' willingness to give his political superiors what they want. What is there to be loyal about? Is it possible that the appointment was driven by a desire to keep the lid on the evidence in the Pentagon as the Democrats hold hearings on the war in Iraq, detainee treatment at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the global war on terrorism? Questions such as these will arise during the confirmation hearings, but other questions will be asked then as well. Gates will be asked how he will treat the reports he receives from the intelligence community. His past record isn't reassuring. According to his co-workers at the CIA during the Reagan administration, who testified at Gates' confirmation hearings as director of the CIA in the first Bush administration, Gates ignored evidence developed by analysts and American agents that contradicted the view of his boss, Director William J. Casey, about the gravity of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Other CIA colleagues charged that Gates supported the White House policy of selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contras, a CIA-supported anti-communist guerrilla operation in Nicaragua, despite a congressional ban on U.S. aid to the rebels. Gates denied the charges, but doubts lingered and will emerge again during his confirmation hearings. Bush's appointment of Gates not only resurrects these old and divisive controversies, but also passes over candidates whose credentials and reputations make them far more suitable nominees. Within his own party two distinguished members of the Iraq Study Group, Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia and former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, have extensive experience at the highest levels of government and are admired on both sides of the political divide. In addition, both men also served in the military -- Warner in the Navy and Marines, and Baker in the Marines. Among Democrats, former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry stands out. He possesses a wide knowledge of defense capabilities and is remembered for his careful management of civilian military relations at the Pentagon and his oversight of such difficult issues as North Korean nuclear proliferation. As the extent of the shift of power in Congress and state capitals around the country becomes increasingly clear, Americans want to believe that the country has turned a page, that the election's decisive verdict in favor of change will elicit a different course, not only from the victorious Democrats but also from the defeated Republicans in Congress and the White House. The next two years will make clear how the Democrats will respond. The opportunities to help the country and move toward solutions of its problems at home and abroad are there, but so are the temptations to run off the rails in excesses of partisanship and "payback." If the Gates appointment is any indication, little has changed at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. P. Edward Haley is W.M. Keck Foundation professor of International Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College. His latest book is "Strategies of Dominance: The Misdirection of U.S. Foreign Policy" (Johns Hopkins/Woodrow Wilson Center Presses, 2006). -- First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -- Mohandas Ghandi, as seen on the Red Hat Site. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:220497 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
