Daniel Schulman

Senior Editor

Based in DC, Dan covers politics and national security. His work has appeared in the Boston Globe Magazine, the Village Voice, the Columbia Journalism Review, and other publications. He is the author of a forthcoming biography of the Koch family, Sons of Wichita, which will be published in May by the Hachette Book Group. Email him at dschulman (at) motherjones.com.

Get my RSS |

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Warner: Best Hearing Ever

| Tue Dec. 5, 2006 2:59 PM PST

Before the Senate Armed Services Committee interrupted its questioning of Robert Gates to break for lunch, outgoing chairman John Warner commented that today's hearing was among "the best we've had" in his 28 years in the Senate – "best" being code, one assumes, for least contentious. The hearing was certainly uncharacteristically civil and free, for the most part, of partisan barbs, save for one surreal moment when Senator Hillary Clinton questioned Gates on whether he believed the President and the Vice President are "intelligent men." But absent from the hearing as well were any tough questions about the serious allegations that have been leveled against Gates in the past, including his role in Iran-Contra and in politicizing intelligence at the CIA.

Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, came the closest to raising these issues, asking Gates to comment on a passage from former Secretary of State George Shultz's memoir, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, which relates a conversation Shultz had with Gates, then the acting CIA director, in January 1987. "I don't have any confidence in the intelligence community," Shultz reportedly told Gates. "I feel you all have very strong policy views. I feel you try to manipulate me. So you have a very dissatisfied customer. If this were a business, I'd find myself another supplier."

Gates responded by telling Levin that he believed Shultz's view of intelligence was colored by his fractious relationship with former CIA director (and Gates' mentor) William Casey. "Bad blood influenced the Secretary of State's view of intelligence," he said, pointing out that Casey had once written to President Ronald Reagan recommending that Shultz be fired. Levin did not press him further.

Certainly Shultz was not the only one who distrusted the information coming out of the CIA. So did some career CIA analysts who believed Casey and Gates were subverting the intelligence process in order to play up the Soviet menace. One of them was Mel Goodman, a longtime friend of Gates and a veteran Soviet analyst, who became one of his most vocal critics, offering damaging testimony during Gates' confirmation hearings in 1991 as he sought to become the director of Central Intelligence. "My major concerns are issues of integrity," Goodman told me recently. "For me, basically, the test of character is what you do when no one's looking. I don't think Bob Gates can be trusted when no one's looking."

Perhaps the Democratic wing of the Armed Services Committee, who would seem the most likely to raise questions about Gates' past, feel this is ancient history, but it certainly seems relevant given the intelligence failures – to put it charitably – that preceded the Iraq war.

During the hearing Gates, who has previously been circumspect about what he knew about Iran-Contra, was praised repeatedly by members on both sides of the aisle for being a straight-shooter. "Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor," Clinton remarked. "That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position that you seek to hold." She was referring to the way Gates had fielded questions about Iraq, at one point answering "No, sir" when asked by Carl Levin whether "we are currently winning in Iraq." Sadly, it seems any semblance of truth passes for candor in Washington these days.

Calling All Conspiracy Theorists

| Fri Dec. 1, 2006 11:04 AM PST

The Federation of American Scientists' Steven Aftergood unearthed this fascinating nugget in a recent Navy directive on its "Human Research Protection Program," which, much as the name suggests, is tasked with safeguarding human research subjects from inhumane experiments.

The Under Secretary of the Navy (UNSECNAV) is the Approval Authority for research involving... severe or unusual intrusions, either physical or psychological, on human subjects (such as consciousness-altering drugs or mind-control techniques).

Umm, mind control. Part of me is relieved that research, of the Manchurian Candidate variety, if it does indeed exist, requires some form of high level approval. Mostly, though, I'm unnerved by the possibility that government researchers are spending any time whatsoever contemplating this line of inquiry. Perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised. The DoD is known for floating some pretty absurd proposals, such as one in 1994 by researchers at the Air Force's Wright Laboratory who pitched developing "harassing, annoying, and 'bad guy' identifying chemicals." One example:

Chemicals that effect human behavior so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected. One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior.

Your tax dollars at work folks.

Tue Jan. 10, 2012 9:49 PM PST
Sun Jan. 8, 2012 8:56 AM PST
Sat Jan. 7, 2012 8:22 AM PST
Tue Jul. 12, 2011 5:45 AM PDT
Tue May. 17, 2011 8:33 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 19, 2010 8:22 AM PDT
Fri Sep. 10, 2010 7:55 AM PDT
Fri Aug. 13, 2010 4:36 AM PDT
Thu Aug. 5, 2010 5:02 AM PDT
Mon Jul. 26, 2010 2:05 PM PDT
Wed Jun. 23, 2010 8:46 AM PDT
Tue Jun. 22, 2010 7:16 AM PDT
Fri Jun. 18, 2010 9:53 AM PDT
Fri Jun. 18, 2010 3:00 AM PDT
Wed Jun. 16, 2010 5:00 AM PDT
Tue Jun. 15, 2010 7:58 AM PDT
Mon Jun. 14, 2010 9:51 AM PDT
Wed Jun. 9, 2010 12:13 PM PDT
Tue Jun. 8, 2010 10:49 AM PDT
Wed May. 26, 2010 12:18 PM PDT
Fri May. 14, 2010 9:25 AM PDT
Fri May. 14, 2010 3:15 AM PDT
Thu May. 6, 2010 1:47 PM PDT
Wed May. 5, 2010 11:00 AM PDT
Wed Apr. 21, 2010 8:07 AM PDT
Sat Apr. 10, 2010 6:23 AM PDT
Fri Apr. 9, 2010 7:33 AM PDT
Thu Apr. 8, 2010 10:57 AM PDT
Thu Apr. 1, 2010 9:44 AM PDT
Thu Apr. 1, 2010 7:15 AM PDT
Fri Mar. 26, 2010 8:42 AM PDT
Thu Mar. 25, 2010 9:29 AM PDT
Tue Mar. 23, 2010 1:47 PM PDT
Tue Mar. 23, 2010 8:58 AM PDT
Wed Mar. 10, 2010 5:31 AM PST
Thu Mar. 4, 2010 9:18 AM PST
Wed Mar. 3, 2010 2:38 PM PST
Wed Mar. 3, 2010 7:45 AM PST
Thu Feb. 25, 2010 12:00 PM PST
Thu Feb. 25, 2010 11:28 AM PST
Wed Feb. 24, 2010 3:10 PM PST