components of the intelligence community and their missions" while having management
experience." Under "Cons" Rumsfeld noted: "RNC post lends undesirable political cast."
As we have seen, the CIA post was finally offered by Ford to Edward Bennett Williams,
perhaps with an eye on building a bipartisan bridge towards a powerful faction of the
intelligence community. But Williams did not want the job. Bush, originally slated for the
Department of Commerce, was given the CIA appointment.
The announcement of Bush's nomination occasioned a storm of criticism, whose themes
included the inadvisability of choosing a Watergate figure for such a sensitive post so
soon after that scandal had finally begun to subside. References were made to Bush's
receipt of financial largesse from Nixon's Townhouse fund and related operations. There
was also the question of whether the domestic CIA appparatus would get mixed up in
Bush's expected campaign for the vice presidency. These themes were developed in
editorials during the month of November, 1976, while Bush was kept in Beijing by the
requirements of preparing the Ford-Mao meetings of early December. To some degree,
Bush was just hanging there and slowly, slowly twisting in the wind. The slow-witted
Ford soon realized that he had been inept in summarily firing Colby, since Bush would
have to remain in China for some weeks and then return to face confirmation hearings.
Ford had to ask Colby to stay on in a caretaker capacity until Bush took office. The delay
allowed opposition against Bush to crystallize to some degree, but his own network was
also quick to spring to his defense.
Former CIA officer Tom Braden, writing in the Fort Lauderdale News, noted that the
Bush appointment to the CIA looked bad, and looked bad at a time when public
confidence in the CIA was so low that everything about the agency desperately needed to
look good. Braden's column was entitled "George Bush, Bad Choice for CIA Job."
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 reason that 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 Congress. But even that distinctly minority position rebels
against any Presidential scenario that looks to the CIA as possible stepping-stone to the
Vice-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 that public confidence in the CIA had to be restored after the
recent revelations of wrongdoing.