CIA director balances spy agency, Washington politics

An AP article last week about CIA Director Leon Panetta's continuing efforts on behalf of his agency and appeasing Congress merely reinforces my previously offered opinion that he is miscast in the role of CIA director. Clearly his professional qualifications, the expectations the president has of him, and his efforts to date make it quite clear that he should be the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who is the President's intelligence advisor and is charged with oversight of all US intelligence agencies and liaison to Congress.

Mark Lowenthal's comment that "One of the things that's unique about CIA is that this is the president's agency. They don't work for anybody else. If they are not effective, the person who gets hurt here is the big guy." is disappointing from an intelligence professional of his stature. He seems to ignore that the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act removed the director of CIA as the principal US intelligence commubity leader in his comments. It also points to the fact that the IC, and perhaps the administration, has not fully grasped or accepted the DNI concept instituted by Congress in 2004 (see my previous comment on this topic).

Perfect Timing for Republicans

With the addition of Al Franken to the US Senate, Democrats have technically achieved a filibuster-proof majority. With little wiggle room left for legislative maneuvering by minority Republicans, now is the perfect time to reflect on basic responsibilities to voters and refocus on core conservative values:

- limited government
- balanced budget
- strong national security

Given the lack of trust many of our Congressional representatives have rightfully earned in recent years, I call upon those genuinely willing to serve their voters, not their own interests, to lobby for self-imposed term limits. If our presidents can be held to two terms, why should our legislature not be held to the same standards?

Agreeing to limited terms would go a long way to help restore voters' trust and respect for elected officials. It is time to return to the original concept of running for public office after gaining real-life experience in a profession or in business, but then also returning to real life after a couple of terms of public service. I am convinced that a major part of our current distrust of elected officials is because many have become professional politicians, further and further removed from real life and the everyday people they are supposed to serve.

Another major trust issue is what has become a common practice among legislators: voting on legislative bills that they have not even read, let alone studied carefully. How can anyone claim to do the people's business by voting on any proposed legislation without having reviewed it thoroughly?

I was encouraged by the appointment of Michael Steele as the new RNC chair and receive his weekly "Trunk." This is my message to Chairman Steele: please stop asking me for financial contributions to various RNC efforts. When our elected Republican senators and representatives commit to the conditions above I will gladly throw as much support as I can possibly muster behind their legislative efforts.

I call on all Republican legislators to start leading by example NOW:

- self-limit your terms in office
- stop voting on legislation you have not read
- avoid all earmarks
- resist government expansion
- refuse to vote for anything but a balanced budget.

Now convince us you are serious about meaningful change!

I confess - I am prejudiced!

The current election campaign brought it to the surface and I finally have to admit to myself that I am prejudiced. I measure people's character in part based on their history of service, military service or some other civil service, to our country.


For years it has been in the back of my mind - unconsciously evaluating someone based on what they have contributed to their country. In casual or deep conversations with old friends of draft-era age, I usually assumed some kind of military service background. More and more often I discover that that assumption is faulty and I remain surprised and puzzled. I can't help wondering if many people's current attitudes about national and foreign policy are limited by this lack of experience. This is precisely the kind of background our parents, the silent generation, relied on for their perspectives on politics and our national leaders brought to their decision-making process.

When I worked for the US Senate, newly retired from the US Air Force, I found more of my colleagues without military service experience than those who did. Since many of them were considerably younger, I assumed that was a direct result of their coming of age in the post-draft era. When I started tracking senators with actual military service, I was taken aback by lack of any military experience by so many members of Congress and suspect their overall judgement in national security and foreign policy is affected by that gap.

Applying this to the current national elections scene, I can only admit that service experience, military or civil, is something I look for and expect from our leaders. Granted, traditionally you find it somewhat less often with women, but nevertheless, I look for it and it affects my assessment of a candidate. And let me hasten to add, a longtime member of Congress with little other experience does not cut it for me. I want my politicians to serve the people (of the country, not necessarily only those of their district) for a period of time, then go back to other pursuits to continue becoming well-rounded citizens, not remain permanent politicians. Yes, I also confess to being an insistent fan of term limits.

And now you know!

Intelligence politicized - again?

Recent Congressional calls for yet another investigation, this time into the destruction of CIA terrorist interrogation tapes, highlights another common misunderstanding of the U.S. intelligence community: the difference between the overall intelligence community and the Central Intelligence Agency. While this is understandable for the average citizen not to be clear on that difference, it is puzzling to hear it from a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI).

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra, one of many seeking an investigation, has been a member of the HPSCI since 2004. So why is he demanding that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) be held responsible and threatening with subpoenas, when it was the deputy director of operations at the CIA who ordered the destruction of the agency's own interrogation tapes. Has he learned so little about intelligence organizations and the activities of the very community he is helping oversee?

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created the office of the Director of National Intelligence and subordinated the CIA once and for all under a national office, on par with the other intelligence agencies (DIA, NSA, NGA, etc). Whether CIA has accepted this arrangement remains debatable and Hoekstra's description of intelligence community leaders as "arrogant" may well fit the CIA leadership of 2005, when the tapes were destroyed. No doubt certain elements within the agency will continue to consider CIA "first among equals" and act accordingly.

While congressional oversight of the intelligence community mandates that the HPSCI and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) must be notified of significant intelligence activities in a timely manner, it is debatable whether the destruction of the interrogation tapes actually rose to the level of significance requiring congressional notification. Much depends on how routine such actions are in other cases and if the tapes were destroyed after Congress requested them as evidence. Otherwise much of this latest congressional "outrage" could be viewed as yet another incident of playing politics with intelligence.

Any intelligence professional will view such "operational" documentation as highly sensitive and generally not releasable outside the organization. Consumers of any intelligence resulting from these interrogations, including congressional committees, should be concerned only with the end product, not the operational source information and methodology. The fact that some disagree with suspected methods and are eager to use such suspicions for political gains does not entitle them to this information. When dealing with national security and intelligence issues, there are good reasons for the classification and limited access to this information. This is also why each intelligence agency employs ever increasing legal staffs to review and approve specific activities. Let's not cripple ourselves in the pursuit of political correctness.

The possibility of politicizing intelligence also comes to mind with the release of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. The 2007 NIE assesses "with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Contrast that with the 2005 NIE assesses "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." What is really behind this reversal? Should we assume an intelligence failure in 2005 or in 2007? Are there elements within CIA who disagree with national security policy and are using the NIE process to pursue political preferences?

Inquiring minds want to know...