On 8 Nov 2006 19:01:50 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in newsq84l21iu2e9h1udmbhdot0rfpv1mku66f@
4ax.com:

Hopefully, if Gates is
the guy, he'll do a good job.

Hopefully, whoever ends up in the position will do a good job. That said,
given the situation, putting a career spook up for the civilian leadership
of the Pentagon with the current CIA role in the "questioning" of prisoners
in the national disgrace that Gitmo has become, not to mention a new
attempt at hiring one of his dad's old buddies, is a very strange thing to
do in this situation. It's almost like Bush is trying to bring things to a
head as quickly as possible, and I'm anxiously awaiting the DemocratIC
(maybe we can add the "IC" back on now!) response. My suspicion is that
the Dems will hold out the olive leaf, and seat him. Anything else might
look ungracious-- maybe Bush is taking advantage of this possible "new
honeymoon"-- but expect a rigorous hearing nonetheless.

Gates was an analyst, and generally, pretty well respected by objective
people. He, IMO, just isn't the best choice for a wartime Sec. As to
what them Dems might do, there's not really any way to claim, again,
objectively, that he is not qualified, only that, as I have,
subjectively, there are better choices. His connections to Bush, Sr.,
really isn't an issue.

Schwartzkopf would have been interesting.

Powell would have been an interesting choice as well,
clearly conveying an attitude of national reconciliation without
actually putting a Democrat in the slot.

"Interesting?" Almost certainly, except not in a good way. Powell
simply isn't qualified, and frankly, doesn't have what it takes to do
what will need to be done. Schwarzkopf and Honore do, and to do so
without being unnecessarily brutal about it.

TC,
R