Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 8, 1994 TAG: 9402100003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DANIEL SCHORR
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
On The Washington Post's op-ed page on Feb. 1, Mr.Gates has urged ``the Senate and the media to reflect further on their parts'' in inflicting undeserved pain on nominees awaiting confirmation by attacks on their ``character or reputation.''
After a full five minutes of further reflection, I have concluded that while scrutiny of candidates has sometimes gone beyond proper bounds - we all have our favorite examples, ranging from Justice Clarence Thomas to Morton Halperin - among those with the least cause to complain are Gates and Inman.
Gates, nominated by president Reagan in 1987 to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, withdrew his nomination after two days of hearings that had nothing to do with his personal life and everything to do with his official life. Specifically, he faced opposition in the Senate Intelligence Committee over his ambiguous role in the Iran-Contra scandal while serving as deputy director of the CIA.
Gates said then that he would never make it to the directorship, but he nevertheless did. Renominated by President Bush in 1991, he faced questioning again on his Iran-Contra role, and also on his alleged tailoring of intelligence estimates to the tastes of his White House superiors and his effect on the morale of the agency.
In this examination of his official actions, there was not a whiff of Borking or Guiniering. He parried the criticism and won confirmation.
Inman has had a much easier time with Senate confirmations than Gates. He sailed without a scratch through four confirmations to positions in the Navy, CIA and National Security Agency. Selected by President Clinton on Dec. 16 to be secretary of defense, he said he hoped for unanimous endorsement by the Senate Armed Services Committee. There was every indication it would be that, or close.
Gates suggests relaxing the ``long required public silence of nominees'' between nomination and Senate confirmation to permit them to defend themselves. Gates may not be aware that Inman, having said as he stood next to the president that he would ``limit my public remarks on issues until the confirmation process is over,'' proceeded directly from the White House to a prearranged television interview with Bob Zelnick of ABC. So much for public silence!
In subsequent days, amid generally favorable reaction, Inman did get some unfavorable media attention, but it wasnot of a sort that would qualify as scurrilous personal attack. His business failures got an airing, but then it was he who, while accepting nomination, had invited attention to his record as a businessman.rather than his intelligence background.
In his Jan. 19 statement of withdrawal, Inman referred to his housekeeper/tax problem, but neither the White House nor the Senate committee had been disposed to make an issue of that. Inman also cited ``vitriolic attacks'' by columnists, notably William Safire. These include such matters as Inman's endorsement of an international arms dealer in trouble with the law and the admiral's restrictive policy in the CIA on sharing intelligence with Israel.
His detractors did not peer into his private life or youthful writings. It was he who raised the question of his refusal as director of the NSA to discharge a gay employee.
Does the experience of either one represent the brutal mauling on which Gates bases his advice to prospective nominees to ``prepare yourself and your family for the worst ... activities of your children and other relatives bared ... personal and marital problems aired?''
Generalizing Inman's bizarre withdrawal into a reign of anti-nominee terror is itself bizarre. What sense of immunity do spymasters enjoy in their secret world that makes them so touchy about public scrutiny?
\ Daniel Schorr is senior news analyst for National Public Radio.
The Washington Post
by CNB