NEWS ANALYSIS : Gates’ Fiery Rebuttal Shows His Darker Side

With his back to the wall after damaging testimony that he had distorted intelligence assessments to fit hard-line political views, Robert M. Gates Thursday laid bare for all to see the rapier-swift intellect that supporters maintain would make him a brilliant CIA chief.

But he also revealed the harsh temperament and the disdain for what he considers inferior thinking that critics fear would smother honest discussion and plunge the intelligence community into turmoil at a critical moment in history.

In a stinging counterattack, Gates rejected the criticism, and he suggested that--until he shook things up--agency analysts were arrogant, self-absorbed and too undisciplined to make the hard judgments about world events that policy-makers demand.

And he made no bones about the fact that his way of dealing with what he sees as the agency’s failings can be harsh in the extreme.

“The selection of a head of American intelligence is not a popularity contest,” Gates said, conceding: “I sure as hell wouldn’t win one at CIA.”

That kind of tough, no-nonsense management is just what the CIA needs, say Gates’ admirers. And, in one sense, Gates’ blunt, point-by-point rebuttal of about 20 charges against him shows the nominee at his professional best: rigorous, methodical, well-informed and persuasive.

Yet, the anger and intolerance that seemed to seethe beneath the surface of his testimony raised the question of whether such a man can reform and refocus the American intelligence community at a time when unparalleled change throughout the world has put a premium on fresh thinking and the ability to shake off old ways of seeing things.

Indeed, the Gates who Thursday dismissed in brutal fashion those with whom he differed or whose work fell short of his expectations fitted the harsh description offered by critics. But it was a Gates not evident in his previous, largely cordial sessions with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The darker side of the nominee that emerged in a suddenly confrontational Senate chamber brought with it new concern that his severe methods and harsh treatment of discordant voices could be warning signs of an official not at ease with being neutral.

The damage he appeared to have done to himself was indicated when, for the first time, senators asked Gates repeatedly whether he might have driven his subordinates too hard. “I was very demanding,” the nominee acknowledged at one point. “I was blunt.”

Although Gates’ defenders sought to portray his rigid demeanor as simply that of a tough boss, his opponents raised suspicions that such a style could stifle the kind of creative and original thinking on which an intelligence agency must depend.

And Gates, after insisting at times that his leadership was “rigorous but fair,” spoke with seeming contempt, during one angry exchange, of former CIA subordinates who had “refused to contemplate the seamy side of the Soviet Union.”

In his carefully crafted opening statement and again throughout the day, Gates steadfastly denied that, during his long tenure at the agency, he had altered the emphasis of intelligence reports to fit his own views or that of his political bosses.

He conceded, however, that morale in the agency had been bruised by the perception that such slanting of reports was widespread. He said that, if confirmed, he would seek to bring about changes to ensure that no one could doubt the objectivity of CIA assessments.

But, as he read passages from a 1982 speech that he said demonstrated his commitment to such reform, the hearing room rang with strident language of the type that critics have said typified a Gates approach that discouraged, if not actually repressed, dissent.

In the address, delivered just three days after the 39-year-old Gates took over as the CIA’s deputy director for intelligence, the new boss told his subordinates that their recent work had been “flabby,” “complacent” and “inadequate.”

Officials said that the speech, which until Thursday had remained secret, was delivered in an atmosphere of high tension in the agency’s dome-like, 500-seat auditorium in January, 1982. At that time, then-CIA chief William J. Casey and his new deputies were seeking dramatic changes within an agency whose morale and performance had suffered badly under the tenure of Adm. Stansfield Turner.

Even Gates’ critics concede that the overhaul he oversaw succeeded in making CIA intelligence reports more conclusive and tightly focused. But some have suggested that the agency’s failure during the 1980s to predict the collapse of Soviet communism was a shortcoming far more monumental than the CIA’s failure in the 1970s to foresee the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And, whether or not they argue that Gates should be held accountable for the mistakes, the critics--including retired analysts Melvin A. Goodman and Jennifer L. Glaudemans--have argued that the program mounted by the nominee served only to undermine morale further.

In his earlier appearance before the committee, the emotional apologia Gates offered for his sins of neglect during the Iran-Contra scandal appeared to blunt Senate criticism. It was evident Thursday that his unyielding stand about the accusations of intelligence slanting had done nothing to restore the earlier conviviality.

Indeed, only minutes after Gates wound up his fierce defense, he found himself in the middle of an icy exchange that made clear he has yet to win some senators’ trust.

“That was testimony under oath, Mr. Gates,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said in employing the kind of mildly threatening reminder usually used for the likes of a Mafia boss. “And you’re under oath now.”