Immediately after the Democrats' victory in taking back Congress, President Bush announced Donald Rumsfeld would be leaving his post as Secretary of Defense and a replacement would be found.

Bush announced who Rumsfeld's replacement would be: Robert Gates. Now, if you were born in 1985 like me you probably had the same reaction to this news that I did: "Robert who?" So I started investigating Gates' record, hoping to find some information as to why he would be a good replacement for Rumsfeld.

I happened upon the work of Robert Parry, a journalist who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for the Associated Press and Newsweek during the Reagan era. I was then extremely disappointed to find out Robert Gates has ties to Reagan and Iran-Contra like almost every other Bush appointee.

Naturally, when you hear the phrase "Bush appointee" you think, "Reagan, oil or George H.W." I was waiting for Gates to be implicated in one of the three connections.

Parry talks about memos written by Gates in his writing and refers to various memos on Nicaragua and the Contras. Gates was an advocate of removing the Sandinistas by force. Gates was particularly harsh on this subject, suggesting the U.S. conduct "air strikes to destroy a considerable portion of Nicaragua's military buildup (focusing particularly on the tanks and the helicopters)."

Gates was another Cold War hardliner, which of course put him in good standing with President Reagan. He was placed in charge of the Central Intelligence Agency's analytical division.

How hard is it for Bush to pick a new face, someone who hasn't been charged or suspected of a war crime, or someone that hasn't worked with one of his dad's or Reagan's administrations? I'd even settle for picking someone who may have worked with another administration but wasn't involved in any unsavory events or questionable practices.

Colin Powell, one of the few Bush appointees I could support (who of course resigned after the mess in Iraq became apparent), now says that Iraq is in a civil war. As the evidence for this claim rapidly mounts, most officials are maintaining Iraq isn't involved in a civil war but is instead composed of many factions essentially all wanting to kill each other with no real leadership.

Technicalities notwithstanding, the situation in Iraq is nearing complete chaos.

In the face of such a crisis, how can we hope that someone who advised we should bomb Nicaragua and who seems to favor an aggressive hardliner approach will improve the, highly volatile situation in Iraq?

Why couldn't Bush choose someone known for their strategy and diplomacy in resolving tough situations such as this? I would have even accepted Colin Powell; at least he'll admit there's a civil war going on.

For a president who says he doesn't talk to his father for advice much, he sure seems to pick a lot of people who have worked with his father when it comes to appointments.

I guess it's another two years of old faces, but 2008 is getting closer by the day.

Columnist Hunter Kincaid: hunterkincaid@thedaily.washington.edu