Breaking: Senate confirms Gates

posted at 6:12 pm on December 6, 2006 by Allahpundit

95-2. Santorum voted no. No one’s interviewed him about it yet, but read this JPost editorial. I’ll bet it tracks pretty close to his reasoning.

I guess you can forget about Santorum for any cabinet positions that open up, huh?

Update: Here we go.

Speaking on the Senate floor after the vote, Mr. Santorum said he thought that Mr. Gates did not fully understand the dangers of “Islamic fascism” in the Middle East. He said that Iran and “its client state of Syria” were stirring violence in Iraq, and that the Iraq Study Group’s recommendation to engage Iran and Syria was “a prescription for surrender.”

Gates was a member of the ISG until he was nominated to replace Rumsfeld.

Tags:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Gates is a coward. Bush is a coward for appointing him.

spmat on December 6, 2006 at 6:30 PM

Gates assures us that although Ahmadinejad may be wacko, his Iranian leadership higher-ups have got to be more responsible. These moderate, reasonable, Iranian leaders, Gates calmly explains, have perfectly understandable reasons to want nukes to defend themselves. Not to worry, it’s just the Cold War Iranian-style. Israel, the US, and Pakistan have nukes, why not Iran?

But what if this sunny analysis is wrong and Iran lobs a weapon of mass destruction at Israel? Well, that’s a risk that Gates seems willing to take.

Well isn’t that nice……………

PinkyBigglesworth on December 6, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Thank you Rick Santorum. At least one Republican gets it.

thirteen28 on December 6, 2006 at 6:32 PM

Booooooo.

Editor on December 6, 2006 at 6:35 PM

Bush continues his downward spiral.

Wade on December 6, 2006 at 6:35 PM

Of course he got confirmed. He is ‘one of them’.

A ‘negotiate with terrorists’ globalist who would gladly weaken America in the long term for a temporary political respite.

Might as well put Bill Gates in there.

Hard to believe that Santorum & Bunning are the ONLY ones that understand though. I thought there were at least four Senators that are smart enough and ‘America-first’ enough to want someone better than Gates.

LegendHasIt on December 6, 2006 at 6:46 PM

This is why I wanted Santorum to replace Bolton at the UN.

William Amos on December 6, 2006 at 8:05 PM

Who was the other “no” vote?

aero on December 6, 2006 at 8:14 PM

We could have waited until next month, then had a liberal, no fighter, pro-Iran D.O.S. in there. I think this is a better situation.

amerpundit on December 6, 2006 at 8:30 PM

I don’t think Santorum was ever in the mix for a cabinet post.

Bush’s track record for these nominations (and other high level positions) seems to be:
a) One of Daddy’s friends (e.g., Cheney, Powell, Card, Rumsfeld)
b) Political quid pro quo (e.g., Chao, Gonzales, Rice, Spellings, Brown)
c) Both of the above
d) Reaching out across the aisle (e.g., Mineta, Tenet)

I voted for Bush twice, so don’t think I’m a Bush-basher. But the folks in category (d) were a disaster; as were some in (a), (b), and (c).

Bush continues his downward spiral.

Wade is right. Bush could have challenged the new Congress to win in Iraq by getting a Pattonesque SecDef. Instead, we get a guy who went to the Jimmy Carter School of foreign affairs. And for the topper, Bolton gets the ax, too.

Pat Buchanan had it right in 2000 when he said, “Al Gore is on the wrong side of the culture war, and George Bush will not fight it.” (That’s only a paraphrase, but I loved that radio commercial).

cmay on December 6, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Okay, no one answered, so I went and looked it up. In case anyone else is curious, the other no vote was Jim Bunning (R) of Kentucky. Here is a snip from his official statement on the matter:

Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face. I am concerned with the message he is sending to our troops and our allies around the world. We need a Secretary of Defense to think forward with solutions and not backward on history we cannot change.

Mr. Gates also believes in directly engaging rogue nations such as Iran and Syria that are known sponsors of terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza. I do not support inviting terrorists to the negotiating table. Such a shift in our nation’s foreign policy could have grave consequences for our national security.

aero on December 6, 2006 at 9:56 PM

Wade is right. Bush could have challenged the new Congress to win in Iraq by getting a Pattonesque SecDef. Instead, we get a guy who went to the Jimmy Carter School of foreign affairs. And for the topper, Bolton gets the ax, too. — cmay

…excellent observations, cmay…dipping into his Daddy’s well of political has-beens has today proven a disaster on two counts, and neither is yet off the launching pad.

It’s steps down for Bush43…after six years of defending the guy, he throws it all back into the teeth of his base. He’s talked himself into being the political nonentity that his measley opponents have accused him of being all along.

Puritan1648 on December 6, 2006 at 11:36 PM

Wow, I’m underwhelmed!

thegreatbeast on December 7, 2006 at 2:45 AM

Yay, a return to “realism”. Cause that’s what’s worked so well in the past.

Free Kurdistan on December 7, 2006 at 2:55 AM

I can defend Bush no longer. Here is who I want for next President. The person who can begin with these 4 things.

1. Kick ass in war time. Fight wars to win.
2. English Official USA Language
3. No amnesty to illegal aliens
4. Profile our enemy

Wade on December 7, 2006 at 10:26 AM