It doesn't get odder than this

When asked how he felt about Ron Paul, Mike Gravel had some surprising things to say:

for those who missed it, it was amazing night indeed. Needless to say, Mike Gravel is an interesting man. I'll have to get around to reading his book sometime soon.

Candidate of a different sort

This post has nothing whatsoever to do with the UC elections.

However, there's an important confirmation hearing going on tomorrow down in Washington. Bush's pick for Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert M. Gates, heads to the Senate where he is most likely to be confirmed. Although it's unclear anyone can steer Iraq in any direction at this point, most agree someone should at least nominally be at the helm. That said, people have cited concern at the former CIA director's record.

The WaPo has a good piece detailing his rise to power and controversial '91 CIA confirmation hearing. Here's the link: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301059.html)

and here are some highlights:

• As a National Intelligence Officer (CIA) he was a Soviet Specialist, and fervently anti-Moscow...he wrote up lots of Intelligence briefs about Moscow's involvement in the third world with such conviction he was called a "zealot." They were almost all proved completely wrong
• He squeaked through his Senate confirmation for CIA director with lots of opposition...everyone one was worried about him DOCTORING INTELLIGENCE. SOUND FAMILIAR???.
• Hugely scandalous involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair, including a memo that said Washington should do "everything in its power short of invasion to put that [Nicaraguan] regime out,"

Let's Get To Work

Well, the Democratic Senate (fingers crossed) already has one major task laid out for it: figure this out.

Bush's nominee to replace Rumsfeld (good riddance) is Robert Gates, longtime of the CIA, and reportedly tangled up fairly heavily in the Iran-Contra affair. The ghosts of old scandals rise again! And the amount of baggage he carries is staggering -- here's what Tom Harkin had to say about him:

Mr. President, at the outset of the confirmation hearings, I had serious reservations about the nominee. The confirmation hearings only raised more questions and greater doubts. Questions and doubts about Mr. Gates' past activities, managerial style, judgment, lapses in memory and analytical abilities. Questions and doubts about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair and in providing military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; and questions and doubts about whether he will be able to remove the ideological blinders reflected in his writings and speeches or whether Mr. Gates is so rooted in the past, that he will not be able to lead the Agency into the post-cold war era. Because of these concerns, I have concluded that Mr. Gates is not the right person for the important job of overseeing our intelligence operations in this New World.

[...] Mr. President, I do not believe that Robert Gates is the right person to lead the CIA at this time. The cold war is over and it's time for some of the old warriors to rest. Now we must take a fresh new look at the world, think new thoughts and reassess the future role of the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to vote against Robert Gates.

That was 1991. Read Harkin's whole statement; it's a doozy.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, to see a nervous and disheartened Bush regressing into his father's presidency; but must he always pick the really scarily incompetent ones? Was this maybe Dick Cheney's doing? Why didn't he choose someone with a connection to the MILITARY, for crying out loud, rather than a spook? There are a ton of WTF questions this nomination immediately raises.

So there need to be vigorous confirmation hearings, and a real effort to cut through the murk and the dust surrounding this guy. I'm envisioning a journey back in time, complete with Ollie North and shady guys in mirrored sunglasses. Maybe synthpop will come back. Who knows. But the Democratic Senate -- or the Democrats on the committee, it occurs to me, if Bush tries to push Gates through the lame-duck session -- had better step forward, because the potential for a real disaster here is serious.