2006.11.08
And replacing Rumsfeld is...
Slashdot had an article today about Rumsfeld's resigning. He's being replaced by Robert Gates, former head of the CIA. Before even reading the article, I remembered who Gates is.
He's the current president of Texas A&M University.
Posted by Luke at 2:03 p.m.
Has the President considered hiring someone outside of Texas? I mean surely every smart, qualified person in the United States cannot live in this state.
I guess at least now we can make Aggie jokes when he screws up. Hmm... maybe that's Bush's plan. Anytime something bad happens in Iraq, he just points out that there's an Aggie as secretary of defense and shrugs.
Posted by Tim on 2006.11.08 at 9:39 a.m.
I'm pretty sure Gates didn't have any particular attachment to the state before coming to A&M. I could be wrong, though.
Posted by Luke on 2006.11.08 at 9:57 a.m.
Yeah, looks like you're right. I'm guessing he must have gotten the A&M job through connections with Bush's father. Still though, my original point was just that Bush seems to only hire people who have some connection to Texas. It's kind of weird.
Posted by Tim on 2006.11.08 at 11:12 a.m.
Does Rumsfeld have any connection to Texas? (I really don't know much about him before 2001 except that he was Ford's SecDef.)
And Gates is not himself an Aggie; some people here at A&M think he's fantastic, some hate him. There's already a push among students for his successor to be an A&M alumnus.
Posted by Alan on 2006.11.09 at 3:08 p.m.
I will point out that Gates was up for the same position several years ago and it failed.
Posted by Gavin on 2006.11.09 at 4:38 p.m.
Um...no, this is the first time Gates has been nominated for SecDef. When the Department of Homeland Security was created, he was Bush's pick to be the first Director of National Intelligence, but he declined the nomination before the Senate had any input (ostensibly because he had just initiated several major projects at A&M and didn't want to leave before they built some momentum).
Posted by Alan on 2006.11.09 at 5:44 p.m.
Haha, I'd totally push for the opposite direction, since I'm not in the pro-tradition camp. :)
Posted by Luke on 2006.11.10 at 1:21 a.m.
But are you necessarily anti-tradition?
Posted by Alan on 2006.11.10 at 2:03 a.m.
I'm really in the "I don't care, just don't annoy me with it" camp. However, that tends to be the equivalent of being anti-tradition, since part of tradition is the annoyance of everyone who doesn't participate. ;-)
Posted by Luke on 2006.11.10 at 7:12 a.m.
Post a Comment