Robert Parry Analyzes why Dems Caved on Gates Nomination....

Democrats Cave on Gates Nomination

By Robert Parry
December 6, 2006

Despite winning the Nov. 7 elections largely due to public anger over the Iraq War, congressional Democrats crumbled in their first post-election confrontation with President George W. Bush on the future direction of that conflict.

Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee floundered though inept questioning of former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, Bush’s new choice for Defense Secretary, failing to nail down the nominee’s precise thinking on any aspect of the war strategy or even to secure a guarantee that the Pentagon would turn over documents for future oversight hearings.

Among many gaps in the questioning, the Democrats didn’t press Gates on whether he shared the neoconservative vision of violently remaking the Middle East, whether he endorsed the Military Commissions Act’s elimination of habeas corpus rights to fair trials, whether he supports warrantless eavesdropping by the Pentagon’s National Security Agency, whether he agrees with Bush’s claim of “plenary” – or unlimited – powers as a Commander in Chief who can override laws and the U.S. Constitution.

When Gates did stake out substantive positions, he almost invariably lined up with Bush’s “stay-until-victory” plan in Iraq. Though insisting that “all the options are on the table,” Gates rejected any timetable for military withdrawal as some Democrats have recommended. He also echoed Bush’s argument that an American pullout would lead to a regional cataclysm.Instead, Gates advocated an open-ended U.S. military presence in Iraq. “We are still going to have to have some level of American support there for the Iraqi military and that could take quite some time,” Gates said.

Democrats couldn’t even get a commitment from Gates to turn over Pentagon documents for congressional oversight. Gates qualified his answer with phrases such as “to the limits of my authority” – suggesting that the Bush administration might well resist demands from Congress for sensitive papers about the war – and that Gates wouldn’t interfere.

-snip-

Yet, because Gates offered some bromides about his “fresh eyes” and his determination not to be “a bump on a log,” the Democratic senators praised his "candor,” hailed the principle of “bipartisanship,” and joined with their Republican counterparts in endorsing Gates’s nomination on a 21-0 vote.

more analysis at......
http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/120506.html

sure -- easy to respond with "candor" when the questions don't amount to shit.

oh, and check the record for your favorite 2008 candidates' praise this Iran-Contra figure's "candor."

...say that we need to "look forward" and not back at anything in Gates' past. That made me puke. I will NEVER NEVER NEVER support John Kerry again. A pox on him.

Let them all rot in hell! :sarcasm:

Isn't he the only anti-corruption, open government Democrat that will open the books on BCCI and Iran-Contra?

Hello.
Anyone?
Buehler?

when they take charge, then just turn on him.

:eyes:

any hopes we had of anything changing should be pretty much doused by this debacle.

Between Smirk being able to veto the little things we were hoping for (minimum wage hike, election reform) and our people caving on gigantic things like having a criminal run the DoD, the difference between the next two years and the last six will be indistinguishable. A blue rubber-stamp instead of a red one.

And get ready for President Jeb.

Are we going to only get more of the same phoney "bi-partisanship" cooperation in hopes of avoiding "deaalock"/ Or was this a tactical move to set things up for later? God only knows, but it doesn't sit well with those of us who were eager to see the dems begin to stand up to the shrub and start putting things back in order.

why the anti-corruption, pro-Parry data folks aren't chiming in on this matter.

And after all the shooting stopped in 1975, we finally got a secretary of defense to preside over an era of peace.

(spoiler warning)







it was him ==>