Roland Evans and Robert Novak, writing in the Washington Post, commented that "the Bush
nomination is regarded by some intelligence experts as another grave morale deflator. They reasonthat any identified politician, no matter how resolved to be politically pure, would aggravate the
CIA's credibility gap. Instead of an identifed politician like Bush...what is needed, they feel, is a
respected non-politician, perhaps from business or the academic world." Evans and Novak
conceded that "not all experts agree. One former CIA official wants the CIA placed under political
leadership capable of working closely with Congrerebels against any Presidential scenario that looks to the CIA as possible stepping-stone to the Vice-ss. But even that distinctly minority position
Presidential nomination."
The Washington Post came out against Bush in an editorial entitled "The Bush Appointment." Here
the reasoning was that this position "should not be regarded as a political parking spot," and thatpublic confidence in the CIA had to be restored after the recent revelations of wrongdoing.
After a long-winded argument, George Will came to the conclusion that Ambassador Bush at the
CIA would be "the wrong kind of guy at the wrong place at the worst possible time."
Senator Church viewed the Bush appointment in the context of a letter sent to him by Ford on
October 31, 1975, demanding that the committee's report on US assassination plots against foreign
leaders be kept secret. In Church's opinion, these two developments were part of a pattern, and
amounted to a new stonewalling defense by what Church had called "the rogue elephant." Church
issued a press statement in response to Ford's letter attempting to impose a blackout on theassassination report. "I am astonished that President Ford wants to suppress the committee's report (^)
on assassination and keep it concealed from the American people," said Church. Then, on
November 3, Church was approached by reporters outside of his Senate hearing room and asked by
Daniel Schorr about the firing of Colby and his likely replacement by Bush. Church responded with
a voice that was trembling with anger. "There is no question in my mind but that concealment is thenew order of the day," he said. "Hiding evil is the trademark of a totalitarian government." [fn 3].
Schorr said that he had never seen Church so upset.
The following day, November 4, Church read Leslie Gelb's column in the New York Times
suggesting that Colby had been fired, among other things, "for notCongressional investigations." George Bush, Gelb thought, "would be able to go to Congre doing a good job containing thess and
ask for a grace period before pressing their investigations further. A Washington Star headline of
this period summed up this argument: "CIA NEEDS BUSH'S PR TALENT." Church talked with
his staff that day about what he saw as an ominous pattern of events. He told reporters: "First came
the very determined administration effort to prevent any revelations concerning NSA, theirstonewalling of public hearings. Then came the president's letter. Now comes the firing of Col (^) by,
Mr. Schlesinger, and the general belief that Secretary Kissinger is behind these latest
developments." For Church, "clearly a pattern has emerged now to try and disrupt this [Senate
Intelligence Committee] investigation. As far as I'm concerned, it won't be disrupted," said Church
grimly.
One of Church's former aides, speech-writer Loch K. Johnson, describes how he worked with
Church to prepare a speech scheduled for delivery on November 11, 1975 in which Church would
stake out a position opposing the Bush nomination:
The nomination of George Bush to succeed Colby disturbed him and he wanted to wind up thespeech by opposing the nomination. [...] He hoped to influence Senate opinion on the nomination (^)
on the eve of Armed Services Committee hearings to confirm Bush.
I rapidly jotted down notes as Church discussed the lines he would like to take against the
nomination. "Once they used to give former national party chairmen [as Bush had been under