A how-to guide to the confirmation process.

Claiming to know nothing about the Iran-contra scandal worked for Ronald Reagan and Oliver North. Will it work for Robert Gates?

ROBERT BORK WON'T get a second shot at the Supreme Court, but his nomination did not die in vain. His 1987 rejection by the Senate taught President Bush & Co. an important political lesson, and they now appear to have established some ground rules for getting Supreme Court nominees confirmed.

The trick is to choose candidates with little or no "paper trail" to reveal their opinions, then be sure that the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee maintains that mystery. Put simply, pick mediocre nominees and make them keep their mouths shut.

By observing the current confirmation hearings for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, we can develop some similar, albeit more complex rules for getting Robert Gates, a scandal-ridden spy, confirmed to head America's most secret organization:

(1) Praise the nominee.

This one is obvious.

People testifying on behalf of Gates must be careful to speak highly of him, and to make it clear that he is well-respected. For example, Alan Fiers, Jr., former head of the CIA's Latin American operations, testified that former CIA-director Bob Casey "had high regard for Bob Gates' abilities, he thought he was the best manager for the Agency."

Because Casey is conveniently dead, we'll have to take Fiers' word on this one.

(2) Find a scapegoat who is immune to harm.

Even the staunchest Ollie North supporters cheerfully blame him for Iran-Contra now. Charges against him were dropped last week and he can now afford to act as a buffer. Casey, too, is a welcome target, since he is even less likely than North to be indicted at this point.

Thus, Fiers stated that orders to conceal information from Congress came "much more likely [from] Casey than Bob Gates."

(3) Claim the nominee was unaware of the scandal.

Bobby Ray Inman, a former Deputy Director for Central Intelligence testified that certain activities were known only to people in specific departments, and thus "it is entirely feasible that there are areas that, yes, even the Deputy Director is excluded from." This line of defense prompts a question that was commonly asked in reference to Ronald Reagan.

Which is worse--to be ignorant of your agency's illegalities, or to be involved in their perpetuation?