We’ve been hearing a lot in recent weeks about how the new Democratic Congress will exercise vigorous oversight of the Bush Administration, but of course, so far, that’s all been just a lot of talk. The Democrats won’t actually be placed in power over Congress until January. Still, a troubling precedent for rather wimpy oversight was set yesterday when every single Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve of the nomination of Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s pick for Secretary of Defense.
Those Democratic senators are:
Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia
Jack Reed of Rhode Island
Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii
Bill Nelson of Florida
Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska
Mark Dayton of Minnesota
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York
Two of those senators, you’ll note, are planning on running for President in 2008: Evan Bayh and Hillary Clinton.
There are serious doubts about Robert Gates that these Democratic senators ignored when they voted to approve the confirmation. One of those doubts involves the participation of Robert Gates in the crimes of the Iran-Contra scandal, which included illegally sending missiles to the Islamic fundamentalist government of Iran. Those missiles could now be fired against American soldiers if we go to war in Iran. Robert Gates testified that he just doesn’t remember whether he was involved in that particular crime, but doubts about him were sufficient to cause his nomination to be withdrawn as inappropriate for consideration for the position of Director of the CIA.
If Robert Gates was not an appropriate choice to lead the CIA, what makes him an appropriate choice to lead the American military? How can we know that Robert Gates won’t get involved in some new scheme to send weapons to Islamic fundamentalists?
Robert Gates has also been accused of pressuring CIA analysts to warp their findings in order to conform to the political needs of the White House. Melvin Goodman, a former CIA analyst who worked under Robert Gates, says, “His strong ideological agenda in support of the White House often led him down the wrong analytical road, causing him to be wrong about the central issues of the day involving the decline and fall of the Soviet Union and the impact of ethnic violence on regional conflicts.”
Ray McGovern, another former CIA analyst who worked under Robert Gates, says, “Gates ordered his more malleable subordinates at the CIA to cook up intelligence reports to provide some comfort to Reagan in acquiescing to these activities. A National Intelligence Estimate of May 1985 predicted Soviet inroads in Iran if the United States did not reach out to ‘moderates’ within the Iranian leadership. In addition, Gates’ analysts were pressed to publish several reports beginning in late 1985 — as HAWK anti-aircraft missiles wended their way to Tehran — that Iranian-sponsored terrorism had ‘dropped off substantially.’ There was no persuasive evidence to support that judgment.”
These are serious flaws that suggest that Robert Gates could well be involved in the same kind of politically-motivated deception and secret illegal programs that have run rampant through the Bush White House. Knowing this, the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve of his nomination anyway.
Where was Democratic oversight? I am concerned that Democratic oversight of Bush Administration activities by the new Congress may be limited to what we saw yesterday: Ask a couple of tough questions, and then give George W. Bush exactly what he wants.
Expect to hear a lot more of the old Democratic excuse: We have to give the Republicans this one, to prove that we are capable of governing. Don’t worry, we’ll use the political capital we’ve gained the next time around, to really exercise some oversight on the issues that matter… Or maybe the time after that…
