Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 19, 2002 / 7 Adar, 5762

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Where's the outrage? -- I HAVE one word for those who thought the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were going to conduct a thorough, no-holds-barred investigation of problems within the U.S. intelligence community that may have contributed to its failure to warn of, and prevent, September 11: Fuggedaboutit.

To be sure, there will be a formal inquiry, featuring some number of open hearings, plus probably large quantities of testimony taken in secret session. The Senate committee's chairman -- Sen. Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida -- declared at a Capitol Hill press conference last Thursday: "We owe [it] to the 3,000 who died, their families and the rest of ascertain why the intelligence community did not learn of the Sept. 11 attack in advance and identify what, if anything, might be done to better position the community to warn and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States."

You would never know from this forthright pronouncement that Sen. Graham had steadfastly resisted conducting such an investigation. The truth of the matter is, however, that both he and his House counterpart -- Rep. Porter Goss, Republican of Florida and a former secret agent -- were as reluctant as CIA Director George Tenet, and the Bush Administration writ large, to see the intelligence community subjected to close scrutiny.

Until Thursday, the argument was that an investigation at this time would distract the Agency's personnel from the war on terrorism. Then suddenly, on Valentine's Day, everything changed. The Committee chairmen expressed their commitment to -- in Sen. Graham's words, "Let the chips fall where they may, whether it's individuals, institutions or processes." For his part, Director Tenet announced that he welcomed the inquiry, saying "It's important we have a record. It is a record of discipline, strategy, focus and action."

What, it might reasonably be asked, prompted such an apparently complete reversal since it seems the demands on the U.S. intelligence community to ferret out and defeat terrorists are as great as ever? There appears to be only one explanation: The fix is in.

On Thursday, Sen. Graham and Rep. Goss disclosed that they had hired one L. Britt Snider to run their $2.6 million investigation. They lauded Mr. Snider's extensive experience on Capitol Hill and in the CIA and spoke with confidence about his ability to conduct a "thorough" and "independent" inquiry. Given the actual nature of his associations in Congress and at the Agency, however, it is no more reasonable to expect Britt Snider to be thorough, let alone truly independent, than it would be if Enron's general counsel had been tapped to run hearings into his company's melt-down.

After all, Mr. Snider is George Tenet's guy. When Tenet was staff director for the Senate Intelligence Committee in the late 1980s -- during which period he forged close personal and professional ties with many of the legislators now charged with overseeing his conduct -- the future CIA Director made Snider the panel's general counsel. Later, when Tenet was appointed the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), he asked Snider to be his "special advisor," in which capacity the latter served for two years. Then, in 1999, Director Tenet persuaded President Clinton to give this hand-picked and reliable subordinate the role of in-house watchdog, the CIA's Inspector General.

Now, it would be one thing if George Tenet had said from the get-go after September 11th that there were serious problems in the way his agency, and the Intelligence Community more broadly, had been doing business. If, for example, he had acknowledged that over the past decade such problems -- including an insistence on the political correctness of U.S. intelligence products, the diminished priority accorded to human intelligence and serious restraints on domestic surveillance of potentially subversive elements -- had contributed to the Nation's vulnerability to terrorist attacks, and pledged his full cooperation to document, address and correct those problems, perhaps having the DCI's proxy run a congressional investigation into these matters might have made sense. Perhaps.

One could at least argue that such a sweetheart arrangement would facilitate the promised cooperation between the Agency and the investigators. But under the actual circumstances -- where, incredibly, DCI Tenet denies that there was any failure -- can someone closely tied to the Director, someone who shares some measure of responsibility with him for whatever went wrong, possibly be the best choice to lead this important inquiry? If, as the Republican Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, put it "We should leave no stone unturned; we've got to turn them all up," that job should not be entrusted to someone who was supposed to have done it long before now.

Unfortunately, this is not simply a question of a bad choice for a key staff position. Rather, it calls into question whether the Senate and House select committees on intelligence can conduct a truly thorough and independent investigation. In calling for a Warren Commission-style board to conduct this inquiry, Sen. Robert Torricelli correctly observed in Sunday's Washington Post that: "Those committees have had continuing oversight responsibilities for the very intelligence agencies they would be investigating" and "would not provide the full and impartial investigation needed."

The Nation desperately needs to learn -- and to apply urgently -- the lessons of September 11th. In the midst of President Clinton's myriad scandals, William Bennett once famously asked, "Where's the outrage?" Regrettably, the outrageousness, and the potential costs, of failing to get to the bottom of the 9/11 intelligence failures demand an even greater outcry now.

JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


02/12/02: Post-mortem on 'Pearl Harbor II'
02/05/02: Spinning on the 'Evil Axis'
01/29/02: A challenge for the history books
01/22/02: Who pulled the plug on the Chinese 'bugs'?
01/15/02: No 'need to know'
01/08/02: Sentenced to de-nuclearize?
12/18/01: Missile defense mismanagement?
12/11/01: Is the Cold War 'over'?
12/04/01: A moment for truth
11/29/01: Send in the marines -- with the planes they need
11/27/01: 'Now Hear This': Does the President Mean What He Says?
11/20/01: Mideast 'vision thing'
11/13/01: The leitmotif of the next three days
11/06/01: Bush's Reykjavik Moment
10/30/01: Say it ain't true, 'W.
10/23/01: Getting history, and the future, right
10/16/01: Farewell to arms control
10/05/01: A time to choose
09/25/01: Don't drink the 'lemonade'
09/11/01: Sudan envoy an exercise in futility?
09/05/01: Strategy of a thousand cuts
08/28/01: Rummy's back
08/21/01: Prepare for 'two wars'
08/14/01: Why does the Bush Administration make a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks and Israel's restrained defensive responses?
08/07/01: A New bipartisanship in security policy?
07/31/01: Don't go there
07/17/01: The 'end of the beginning'
07/10/01: Testing President Bush
07/03/01: Market transparency works
06/27/01: Which Bush will it be on missile defense?
06/19/01: Don't politicize military matters
06/05/01: It's called leadership
06/05/01: With friends like these ...
05/31/01: Which way on missile defense?
05/23/01: Pearl Harbor, all over again
05/15/01: A tale of two Horatios
05/08/01: The real debate about missile defense
04/24/01: Sell aegis ships to Taiwan
04/17/01: The 'hi-tech for China' bill
04/10/01: Deal on China's hostages -- then what?
04/03/01: Defense fire sale redux
03/28/01: The defense we need
03/21/01: Critical mass
03/13/01: The Bush doctrine
03/08/01: Self-Deterred from Defending America
02/27/01: Truth and consequences for Saddam
02/21/01: Defense fire sale
02/13/01: Dubya's Marshall Plan
02/05/01: Doing the right thing on an 'Arab-Arab dispute'
01/30/01: The missile defense decision
01/23/01: The Osprey as Phoenix
01/17/01: Clinton's Parting Shot at Religious Freedom
01/09/01: Wake-up call on space
01/02/01: Secretary Rumsfeld
12/27/00: Redefining our Ukraine policy
12/19/00: Deploy missile defense now
12/12/00: Sabotaging space power
12/05/00: Preempting Bush
11/28/00: What Clinton hath wrought
11/21/00: HE'S BAAAACK
11/14/00: The world won't wait

© 2001, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.