Donald Rumsfeld is out. Read about it here, here, and here. The Senate is now one seat shy of Democratic control. But, in spite of brilliant speculation by the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Bush did not replace Rumsfeld with Joe Lieberman so Connecticut's governor could appoint a Republican in his place and keep a lock on the Senate. That whole conspiracy is here. Rack another apology up for Mr. Sullivan. But who the hell is this Gates guy? Clearly he's a part of the Cracker Mafia from whose ranks Dubya freqently pulls. But let's get to know him.

• The man who is slated to become the 22nd U.S. Secretary of Defense was formerly the 22nd president of Texas A&M (from 1999-2001, he served as Interim Dean at the George Bush School of Public Service). Gates's stint in the Ivory Tower is the tail end of a career spent in military intelligence, having joined the CIA in 1966 as an entry-level employee and eventually rising to the agency's top slot in 1991 at the behest of George Bush 41.

Sources: here, here.

• He almost got there four years sooner. In 1987, Gates was nominated to be director of the CIA but backed out over questions concerning his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. According to the transcript of his Senate confirmation hearing in 1991, opponents to his confirmation the first time around "accused him of misleading Congress, preparing misleading testimony, (and of) being part of the coverup of the Iran-Contra scandal, including the diversion of funds." After a four-year, $25 million investigation spanning 500 witnesses and 300,000 documents, Gates was cleared of any wrongdoing to the satisfaction of the Senate Intelligence Committee, passing muster by an 11-4 vote.

Source: here.

• The New York Times, for one, didn't exactly approve of the decision. In a Oct. 18, 1991 article published before the hearing, the Times's editorial board writes: "President Bush contends he needs an experienced insider and has nominated Robert Gates to be Director of Central Intelligence, a choice the Senate Intelligence Committee votes on today. There are strong reasons to vote no." Reasons includes Gates's "supervised preparation of Director William Casey's deceitful testimony to Congress about the scandal" and his proferring of faulty intel for "reasons of political expediency." After his successful confirmation, the Times wrote again, on November 4, 1991, that "reservations about Mr. Gates—his denying knowledge of Iran-contra, slanting intelligence and winking at reporting requirements—suggest that he is a man used to doing business the old way."

He'll fit right in.