- The Washington Times - Tuesday, February 19, 2002

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, Florida Democrat declared at a Capitol Hill press conference last Thursday: "We owe [it] to the 3,000 who died, their families and the rest of America … to ascertain why the intelligence community did not learn of the September 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 Mr. 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, Florida Republican 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 Mr. 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, Mr. Graham and Mr. Goss disclosed that they had hired one L. Britt Snyder to run their $2.6 million investigation. They lauded Mr. Snyder'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 Snyder 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 meltdown.

After all, Mr. Snyder is George Tenet's guy. When Mr. 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 Mr. Snyder the panel's general counsel. Later, when Mr. Tenet was appointed director of central intelligence (DCI), he asked Mr. Snyder to be his "special adviser," in which capacity the latter served for two years.

Then, in 1999, Mr. 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 11 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, Mr. Tenet denies 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 editions of The 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 11. 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 September 11 intelligence failures demand an even greater outcry now.


Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide