In Gates Selection, White House Hopes to Close Rift Between

[spindrifter]

State and Defense

By DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANE
Published: November 12, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 — President Bush selected Robert M. Gates as his new defense secretary in part to close a long-running rift between the Defense Department and the State Department that has hobbled progress on Iraq, keeping the two agencies at odds on issues ranging from reconstruction to detaining terrorism suspects, according to White House officials and members of Mr. Gates’s inner circle.

While Mr. Gates, a former director of central intelligence, had long been considered for a variety of roles, over the past two months Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quietly steered the White House toward replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld with Mr. Gates, who had worked closely with Ms. Rice under the first President Bush. One senior participant in those discussions, who declined to be identified by name while talking about internal deliberations, said, “everyone realizes that we don’t have much time to get this right” and the first step is to get “everyone driving on the same track.”

White House officials said that goal may be difficult to accomplish in the seventh year of an administration. Ms. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld never managed to resolve their differences, especially after their arguments over the handling of the occupation came into public view in late summer 2003. As national security adviser during Mr. Bush’s first term, Ms. Rice was unable to halt a war between the State Department and the Pentagon that put senior officials in the departments in a state of constant conflict.

The question now is whether it is simply too late to achieve President Bush’s goal of a stable and democratic Iraq, even if Mr. Gates and Ms. Rice are able to work together as smoothly in altering policy as they did 15 years ago on a very different kind of problem, managing the American response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/washington/12gates.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[bemildred]

1. Right.

"The question now is whether it is simply too late to achieve President Bush’s goal of a stable and democratic Iraq"

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

[Wetzelbill]

2. and close the gap between Iran-Contra corruption and the

current group of ethics problems. Sort of a return to the old crazy ways as opposed to the new delusional ones.

[The Count]

7. Post of the day! A classic!

[mom cat]

10. You got that right!

[savemefromdumbya]

3. Are we going to have Iran Contra part 2?

with Mr Gates

[Wetzelbill]

4. it's some seriously tough times when you have to trade

a former Watergate and current Iraq fiasco stalwart Rummy for an Iran-Contra vet like Gates. And, Gates is actually an upgrade. :)

[bemildred]

5. Gates is an upgrade.

I'd put him on trial if I could, but at least he is "reality based".

[The Count]

8. Absence of insanity is not necessarily a step up.

[spindrifter]

6. Maybe we already have Cheney-contra/or many

BFEE-contras as a result of the nice cash float--both missing and wasted-- in Iraq.

[bemildred]

9. Iraq-contra, maybe. Ortega is running Nicaragua again ... nt

[Wetzelbill]

11. oh man, I know...

I tell ya, the world is one odd place. :)

[texpatriot2004]

12. and open rift that is still not closed between corruption and this

administration