What does that have to do with anything?

Look, it's great that Andrew Traver is a survivor of prostate cancer, but I don't understand why the Christian Science Monitor sees this as a plus in relation to his nomination to head the ATF. I know that current military officers are under oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same," but from what I understand the vast majority of them endeavor not to BREAK that oath when they leave the service. Is it just me, or do Mr. Traver's post-Navy actions seem to be breaking that oath? Sounds like he never took it that seriously to begin with, considering his alliances with various anti-gun organizations.

Furthermore, shouldn't that be a conflict of interest that automatically disqualifies him from being head of the organization?