Showing posts with label Military Natl Security Intel CIA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Natl Security Intel CIA. Show all posts

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Photo caption: It is not known as to whether or not Carrie Ann Knauer, pictured above interviewing Ms. Child in an undated photograph, followed in Ms. Child’s footsteps. She is indeed not only an excellent writer and cook - - but was she also once a secret agent? Kevin Dayhoff - File photo circa 2000.

Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring. Reports unsubstantiated that
Carrie Ann Knauer was also once a secret agent

August 13, 2008

As many folks who follow the news are aware, it was recently revealed that Julia Child was part of a WWII-era spy ring

As you can read in the Associated Press story: “Other notables identified in the files include John Hemingway, son of author Ernest Hemingway; Quentin and Kermit Roosevelt, sons of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for the band The Police.”

However it has not been confirmed as to whether or not Carroll County’s very own “Rachael Ray” was ever a spy. We all know
Carrie Ann Knauer’s work; she’s the prolific writer with the Carroll County Times who well known for her excellent coverage of Carroll County’s number one industry, agriculture, the environment and Carroll County’s number one love – food.

Did indeed, Ms. Knauer, pictured above interviewing Ms. Child in an undated photograph, follow in Ms. Child’s footsteps – and is indeed not only an excellent writer and cook - - but was also a secret agent.

Perhaps we’ll never know.

What is known is that Ms. Knauer first burst into the news media when she came to the
Carroll County Times in February 2002. Of course this coincides well with fact that Ms. Childs moved to a retirement community in Santa Barbara, California, in 2001…

We are also aware that Ms. Knauer has been known to disappear for periods of time in which her locational whereabouts are not disclosed

Hmmm, makes you wonder, now doesn’t it.

####
Documents: Julia Child part of WWII-era spy ring

Related Searches:
CIA Director William Casey
Office of Strategic Services
Kermit Roosevelt
military plans
Slideshow: International spy ring revealed

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and RANDY HERSCHAFT, Associated Press Writers Wed Aug 13, 11:10 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Famed chef Julia Child shared a secret with Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg and Chicago White Sox catcher Moe Berg at a time when the Nazis threatened the world.

They served in an international spy ring managed by the Office of Strategic Services, an early version of the CIA created in World War II by President Franklin Roosevelt.

The full secret comes out Thursday, all of the names and previously classified files identifying nearly 24,000 spies who formed the first centralized intelligence effort by the United States. The National Archives, which this week released a list of the names found in the records, will make available for the first time all 750,000 pages identifying the vast spy network of military and civilian operatives.

They were soldiers, actors, historians, lawyers, athletes, professors, reporters. But for several years during World War II, they were known simply as the OSS. They studied military plans, created propaganda, infiltrated enemy ranks and stirred resistance among foreign troops.

[…]

Other notables identified in the files include John Hemingway, son of author Ernest Hemingway; Quentin and Kermit Roosevelt, sons of President Theodore Roosevelt, and Miles Copeland, father of Stewart Copeland, drummer for the band The Police.


Read the entire article here:
Julia Child part of WWII-era spy ring
20080813 Julia Child part of WWII era spy ring

Thursday, May 29, 2008

20080528 Ex Press Aide Writes Bush Misled US on Iraq by Michael D. Shear Washington Post

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679_pf.html

By Michael D. Shear Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 28, 2008; A01

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" led by President Bush and aimed at "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war."

McClellan includes the charges in a 341-page book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," that delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. He describes Bush as demonstrating a "lack of inquisitiveness," says the White House operated in "permanent campaign" mode, and admits to having been deceived by some in the president's inner circle about the leak of a CIA operative's name.

The book, coming from a man who was a tight-lipped defender of administration aides and policy, is certain to give fuel to critics of the administration, and McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues. He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case. He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints.

McClellan stops short of saying that Bush purposely lied about his reasons for invading Iraq, writing that he and his subordinates were not "employing out-and-out deception" to make their case for war in 2002.

But in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

Read the entire article here: Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq

Friday, January 4, 2008

20080104 Wall Street: Journal Criminalizing the CIA

Wall Street: Journal Criminalizing the CIA

I could not agree more… “So here we go again, ringing up CIA agents who thought they were acting in good faith to keep the country safe… But why should any future agent take any risks to gather information, or pursue an enemy, if he thinks he is likely to have to answer to some future prosecutor for his every action?”

Criminalizing the CIA

January 4, 2008; Page A10

REVIEW & OUTLOOK by The Wall Street Journal

When news broke that the CIA had destroyed videotapes of a couple of early terrorist interrogations, Democrats in Congress demanded a criminal investigation. Now that Attorney General Michael Mukasey is obliging, they still aren't satisfied. So here we go again, ringing up CIA agents who thought they were acting in good faith to keep the country safe.

On Wednesday Mr. Mukasey assigned prosecutor John Durham, a 25-year Justice Department veteran, to investigate if CIA agents committed a crime when they destroyed the tapes in 2005 under orders from the then-head of the covert Directorate of Operations. But that isn't enough for John Conyers (D., Mich.), who wants a full-blown "special counsel" to wade into the CIA's covert-ops division and deliver a public excavation…

[…]

The interrogations also took place at a time -- starting in 2002 -- when some Members of Congress were regularly briefed on the CIA practices, including "waterboarding." Among those briefed were Jay Rockefeller IV and Nancy Pelosi, neither of whom saw fit to object to the methods. We are now in a different political place, and in a different election year, and these same Democrats want to join the left in accusing the Bush Administration of "torture" and a cover-up.

The Bush Administration is already on its way out, so the real damage here may be to our ability to gather future intelligence no matter who is President…

[…]

One of the stock criticisms of the CIA after 9/11 is that the agency played it too safe in pursuing al Qaeda. But why should any future agent take any risks to gather information, or pursue an enemy, if he thinks he is likely to have to answer to some future prosecutor for his every action?

As for the tapes, no doubt the agency now wishes they had never been made, much less destroyed. But the irony is that their destruction might well have saved the U.S. from the embarrassment of having them leaked to the world and turned into a propaganda victory for our enemies…

[…]

Yet instead, we are now unleashing prosecutors against agents who on the evidence so far were acting not to pursue some political agenda but to defend the nation against its most ruthless enemies. We hope Mr. Durham understands the difference, and that we don't cripple the very spooks we need to fight the war on terror.

Read the entire opinion here: Criminalizing the CIA

####

Sunday, October 7, 2007

20071006 Scrappleface: CIA May Threaten Detainees with Senate Hearings

Scott Ott – Scrappleface: CIA May Threaten Detainees with Senate Hearings



by Scott Ott (2007-10-06)



According a newly-leaked top-secret document published in The New York Times ‘Classified’ section today, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has employed controversial methods to extract information from terror suspects, including threats to put the detainee in front of a Senate committee for further interrogation.


If true, it means that U.S. agents may be using a technique “tantamount to torture,” an unnamed source told the Times.


“I’ve seen those Senate hearings on TV,” the source said. “I’d rather be waterboarded, slapped about the head and assaulted with high-volume Britney Spears music while confined to a meat locker.




Tuesday, July 3, 2007

20070702 Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

Grant of Executive Clemency for Libby by President Bush

July 2nd, 2007

GRANT OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Home > News & Policies > Proclamation Archives

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Hat Tip: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11658207

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment, 2 years' supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

20070702 Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

Full text of Bush statement on Libby decision

July 2nd, 2007

References: Grant of Executive Clemency

Statement by the President On Executive Clemency for Lewis Libby

Read president's text on commuting ex-White House aide's prison sentence

Hat Tip: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19570172/

July 2, 2007

President Bush's released a statement Monday sparing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term. The following is the full text of the document.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

####

For additional information:

On “Soundtrack” click on: Plame Wilson Novak Libby CIA Leak Case

Timeline: CIA Leak Case: Follow the twists and turns in the CIA leak investigation that resulted in Libby's conviction — and in a sentence commutation from President Bush.

Read Libby's appeal denial (pdf file)

Libby becomes inmate No. 28301-016

Libby seeks delay of prison term

Read Bush's full statement on Libby

Libby denied request to remain free on bond

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

The latest on Bush commuting Libby

MAIN REPORT PAGE

Bush Decision on Libby Draws Fire

Wilson: Commuting Libby's Sentence Is 'Corrupt'

President's Move on Libby Risks Fallout

Comment: Bush had nothing to lose over Libby

Timeline: 'Scooter' Libby trial

Libby suffers new court defeat

July 2, 2007: Libby Won't Go to Prison; Fine, Probation Remain

June 5, 2007: Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years in CIA Leak Case

March 6, 2007: Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Found Guilty of Lying

Feb. 20, 2007: Final Arguments Made in Libby Perjury Case

July 2, 2007: The Trial of Lewis Libby

Feb. 8, 2007: Prosecution Rests Case in Libby Trial

Jan. 16, 2007: Jury Selection to Begin in Libby Trial

Monday, June 25, 2007

20070625 CyberAlert

CyberAlert

Media Resarch Center

A usually-daily report, edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert is distributed by the Media Research Center, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

The 2,434th CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996

6:15am EDT, Monday June 25, 2007 (Vol. Twelve; No. 107)


1. NBC: 'Ugly Emotions' on Illegal Immigration 'Fanned' by Limbaugh On Sunday's NBC Nightly News, reporter John Yang distorted Pat Buchanan's point about the level of crime committed by illegal immigrants as he impugned Rush Limbaugh for helping to "fan" such "ugly emotions." Previewing the expected Senate vote Tuesday on whether to revive the immigration bill, Yang asserted that "the outcome is uncertain, largely because of the heated debate over how to treat people illegally in the country." Yang charged: "On NBC's Meet the Press today, that debate turned ugly." Viewers then saw a soundbite from Buchanan: "Many of them are child molesters or drunk drivers, they're rapists, they're robbers, they've got a variety of crimes but they commit a felony by being here." After a clip of Democratic Congressman Luis Guttierrez, on the same show, condemning Buchanan for casting "aspersions" and reasonably insisting that "the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants that come here to this country come here to work hard, sweat, toil, and make our country a better place," Yang, presumably referring back to Buchanan, alleged: "Those emotions are being fanned by conservative radio talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh." Yang played an audio clip of Limbaugh: "They want low-skilled, uneducated, cheap labor in the country -- because that's their next class of victims."

2. ABC's Marlantes: Bush Policies Worse than Illegal CIA of Past On ABC's World News Sunday, during a story about the release of classified information regarding the CIA's "cloak and dagger" past in the 1960s and 1970s, correspondent Liz Marlantes suggested that the Bush administration engages in abuses that are worse than the illegal activities detailed in the documents: "But this all comes when the CIA is under fire for an alleged array of current abuses, including the use of secret prisons and torture. Some say the activities of the past may look mild by comparison."

3. NYT Movie Critic Praises 'Sicko,' Frets Lack of 'Social Welfare' New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott called Michael Moore "a credit to the Republic" after Fahrenheit 9-11 and now thinks Sicko is his "funniest," "most broadly appealing" film yet. In Friday's paper, Scott again defended (in a markedly defensive manner) dubious left-wing documentarian Moore in his glowing review of Sicko, Moore's new documentary on the U.S. health care system. Scott empathized with Moore's bewilderment over why the U.S. is now more like Western European nations: "He wants us to be more like everybody else. When he plaintively asks, 'Who are we?,' he is not really wondering why our traditions of neighborliness and generosity have not found political expression in an expansive system of social welfare. He is insisting that such a system should exist, and also, rather ingeniously, daring his critics to explain why it shouldn't."

Check Out the MRC's Blog

The MRC's blog site, NewsBusters, "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias," provides examples of bias 24/7. With your participation NewsBusters will continue to be THE blog site for tracking and correcting liberal media bias. Come post your comments and get fresh proof of media misdeeds at: http://www.newsbusters.org

Monday, May 21, 2007

20070520 Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates College of William and Mary Graduation Exercises Remarks

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates College of William and Mary Graduation Exercises Remarks

College of William and Mary May 20, 2007

Courtesy of Joseph McClain, Director of Research Communications, The College of William & Mary and U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Duty Officer

For more information go to: “Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates transcribed commencement remarks;” or - http://www.wm.edu/news/index.php?id=7791

and -Video of Gates' remarks and -Commencement 2007 coverage

_____

Thank you, President Nichol. Members of the faculty, parents, distinguished guests. Justice O’Connor—Chancellor—a pleasure to see you. Justice O’Connor administered my oath of office as Director of Central Intelligence in 1991 and, more recently, as President Nichol has mentioned, we served on the Baker-Hamilton Commission last year—although my tenure on the group was rather abruptly interrupted.

Speaking of which, in terms of my timing in taking on the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense, it reminds me of a story told long ago by Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, who spoke of having seen a bull that charged a locomotive. He said, “You know that was the bravest bull I ever saw, but I can’t say much for his judgment.”

Dr. Kelso and Secretary Coleman, your recognition here today is well-deserved.

To the members of the Class of 2007: Congratulations. I am truly honored—and flattered—to be your graduation speaker.

I presided over 39 commencement ceremonies as president of Texas A&M, yet, today is the first commencement speech I have ever given. I thank all of you for the extraordinary privilege of letting it be at my alma mater.

To the parents: you must be welling up with pride at the achievements of your children. Having put two children through college, I know there are many sighs of relief as well, and you are probably already planning how to spend your newly re-acquired disposable income. Forget it. Trust me on this. If you think you’ve written your last check to your son or daughter, dream on. The National Bank of Mom and Dad is still open for business.

I guess I am supposed to give you some advice on how to succeed. I could quote the billionaire J. Paul Getty, who offered advice on how to get rich. He said, “Rise early, work late, strike oil.” Or, Alfred Hitchcock, who said, “There’s nothing to winning really. That is if you happen to be blessed with a keen eye, an agile mind, and no scruples whatsoever.

Well, instead of those messages, my only words of advice for success today comes from two great women. First, opera star Beverly Sills, who said, “There are no short cuts to anyplace worth going.” And second, from Katharine Hepburn, who wrote: “Life is to be lived. If you have to support yourself, you had bloody well find some way that is going to be interesting. And you don’t do that by sitting around wondering about yourself.”

In all those 39 commencements at Texas A&M, I learned the importance of brevity for a speaker. George Bernard Shaw once told a speaker he had 15 minutes. The speaker asked, “How can I possibly tell them all I know in 15 minutes? Shaw replied, “I advise you to speak very slowly.” I will speak quickly, because, to paraphrase President Lincoln, I have no doubt you will little note nor long remember what is said here.

I arrived at William & Mary in 1961 at age 17, intending to become a medical doctor. My first year was pure pre-med: biology, chemistry, calculus and so on. I soon switched from pre-med to history. I used to say “God only knows how many lives have been saved by my becoming Director of CIA instead of a doctor.”

When reflecting on my experience here I feel gratitude for many things:

To William & Mary for being a top-tier school that someone like me could actually afford to attend—even as an out-of-state student. By the way, hold on to your hats, parents: Out of state tuition then was $361 a semester.

Gratitude for the personal care and attention from a superb faculty and staff—a manifestation of this university’s commitment to undergraduate education that continues to this day;

Gratitude to those in the greater Williamsburg community, who opened their hearts and their homes to a 17-year-old far from his own home; and

Gratitude for one more thing. During my Freshman year I got a ‘D’ in calculus. When my father called from Kansas to ask how such a thing was possible, I had to admit, “Dad, the ‘D’ was a gift.” So, I’m grateful to that math professor too.

What William & Mary gave me, above all else, was a calling to serve—a sense of duty to community and country that this college has sought to instill in each generation of students for more than 300 years. It is a calling rooted in the history and traditions of this institution.

Many a night, late, I’d walk down Duke of Gloucester Street from the Wren Building to the Capitol. On those walks, in the dark, I felt the spirit of the patriots who created a free and independent country, who helped birth it right here in Williamsburg. It was on those walks that I made my commitment to public service.

I also was encouraged to make that commitment by the then-president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, who said to we young Americans in the early 1960s, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.”

We are celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown. Looking back, it’s hard to imagine this country could have gotten off to a more challenging start. It began as a business venture of a group of London merchants with a royal patent. The journalist Richard Brookhiser recently compared it to Congress today granting Wal-Mart and GE a charter to colonize Mars.

Brookhiser wrote, “Its leaders were always fighting. Leaders who were incompetent or unpopularsometimes the most competent were the least popularwere deposed on the spot,” He continues, “The typical 17th Century account of Jamestown argues that everything would have gone well if everyone besides the author had not done wrong.” Sounds like today’s memoirs by former government officials.

Jamestown saw the New World’s first representative assembly—the institutional expression of the concept that people should have a say in how they were governed, and having that say brought with it certain obligations: a duty to participate, a duty to contribute, a duty to serve the greater good.

It is these four-hundred-year-old obligations that I want to address for the next few minutes. When talking about American democracy, we hear a great deal about freedoms, and rights, and, more recently, about the entitlements of citizenship. We hear a good deal less about the duties and responsibilities of being an American.

Young Americans are as decent, generous, and compassionate as we’ve ever seen in this country—an impression reinforced by my four and a half years of experience as President of Texas A&M, by the response of college students across America—and especially here at William & Mary—to the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and even more powerfully reinforced by almost six months as Secretary of Defense.

That is what makes it puzzling that so many young people who are public-minded when it comes to their campus and community tend to be uninterested in— if not distrustful of—our political processes. Nor is there much enthusiasm for participating in government, either as a candidate or for a career.

While volunteering for a good cause is important, it is not enough. This country will only survive and progress as a democracy if its citizens—young and old alike—take an active role in its political life as well.

Seventy percent of eligible voters in this country cast a ballot in the election of 1964. The voting age was then 21. During the year I graduated, 1965, the first major American combat units arrived in Vietnam, and with them, many 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds. In recognition of that disparity, years later the voting age would be lowered to 18 by constitutional amendment.

Sad to say, that precious franchise, purchased and preserved by the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans your age and younger from 1776 to today, has not been adequately appreciated or exercised by your generation.

In 2004, with our nation embroiled in two difficult and controversial wars, the voting percentage was only 42 percent for those aged 18 to 24.

Ed Muskie, former senator and Secretary of State, once said that “you have the God given right to kick the government around.” And it starts with voting, and becoming involved in campaigns. If you think that too many politicians are feckless and corrupt, then go out and help elect different ones. Or go out and run yourself. But you must participate, or else the decisions that affect your life and the future of our country will be made for you—and without you.

So vote. And volunteer. But also consider doing something else: dedicating at least part of your life in service to our country.

I entered public life more than 40 years ago, and no one is more familiar with the hassles, frustrations and sacrifices of public service than I am. Government is, by design of the Founding Fathers, slow, unwieldy and almost comically inefficient. Will Rogers used to say: “I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”

These frustrations are inherent in a system of checks and balances, of divisions and limitations of power. Our Founding Fathers did not have efficiency as their primary goal. They designed a system intended to sustain and protect liberty for the ages. Getting things done in government is not easy, but it’s not supposed to be.

I last spoke at William & Mary on Charter Day in 1998. Since then our country has gone through September 11 with subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We learned once again that the fundamental nature of man has not changed, that evil people and forces will always be with us, and must be dealt with through courage and strength.

Serving the nation has taken on a whole new meaning and required a whole new level of risk and sacrifice—with hundreds of thousands of young Americans in uniform who have stepped forward to put their lives on the line for their country. These past few months I’ve met many of those men and women—in places like Fallujah and Tallil in Iraq and Bagram and Forward Operating Base Tillman in Afghanistan—and at Walter Reed as well. Seeing what they do every day, and the spirit and good humor with which they do it, is an inspiration. The dangers they face, and the dangers our country faces, make it all the more important that this kind of service be honored, supported, and encouraged.

The ranks of these patriots include the graduates of William & Mary’s ROTC program, and the cadets in this Class of 2007, who I’d like to address directly. You could have chosen a different path—something easier, or safer, or better compensated—but you chose to serve. You have my deepest admiration and respect—as Secretary of Defense, but mostly as a fellow American.

You are part of a tradition of voluntary military service dating back to George Washington’s Continental Army. That tradition today includes General David McKiernan, William & Mary Class of 1972, who led the initial ground force in Iraq and now commands all Army troops in Europe. It also is a tradition not without profound loss and heartache.

Some of you may know the story of Ryan McGlothlin, William & Mary Class of 2001: a high school valedictorian, Phi Beta Kappa here, and Ph.D. candidate at Stanford. After being turned down by the Army for medical reasons, he persisted and joined the Marines and was deployed to Iraq in 2005. He was killed leading a platoon of riflemen near the Syrian border.

Ryan’s story attracted media attention because of his academic credentials and family connections. That someone like him would consider the military surprised some people. When Ryan first told his parents about joining the Marines, they asked if there was some other way to contribute. He replied that the privileged of this country bore an equal responsibility to rise to its defense.

It is precisely during these trying times that America needs its best and brightest young people, from all walks of life, to step forward and commit to public service. Because while the obligations of citizenship in any democracy are considerable, they are even more profound, and more demanding, as citizens of a nation with America’s global challenges and responsibilities—and America’s values and aspirations.

During the war of the American Revolution, Abigail Adams wrote the following to her son, John Quincy Adams: “These are times in which a genius would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life, or the repose of a pacific station that great characters are formed. . . . Great necessities call out great virtues.”

You graduate in a time of “great necessities.” Therein lies your challenge and your opportunity.

A final thought. As a nation, we have, over more than two centuries, made our share of mistakes. From time to time, we have strayed from our values; and, on occasion, we have become arrogant in our dealings with others. But we have always corrected our course. And that is why today, as throughout our history, this country remains the world’s most powerful force for good—the ultimate protector of what Vaclav Havel once called “civilization’s thin veneer.” A nation Abraham Lincoln described as mankind’s last, best hope.”

If, in the 21st century, America is to be a force for good in the world—for freedom, the rule of law, and the inherent value of each and every person; if America is to continue to be a beacon for all who are oppressed; if America is to exercise global leadership consistent with our better angels, then the most able and idealistic of your generation must step forward and accept the burden and the duty of public service. I promise you that you will also find joy and satisfaction and fulfillment.

I earlier quoted a letter from Abigail Adams to her son, John Quincy. I will close with a quote from a letter John Adams sent to one of their other sons, Thomas Boylston Adams. And he wrote: “Public business, my son, must always be done by somebody. It will be done by somebody or another. If wise men decline it, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not.”

Will the wise and the honest among you come help us serve the American people?

Congratulations and Godspeed.

###

Monday, January 15, 2007

200701113 A commentary on the new director of national intelligence





A commentary on the new director of national intelligence Mike McConnell

For other related posts click hereor here.


For a bit more information, click here…


This photo: Rear Admiral John McConnell, 1990


Nation

New Intel Chief: Wrong for the Job , Jan. 10, 2007 | By Robert Baer


...Baer says the CIA needs to stop its overreliance on technology and outsourcing of intelligence. But that's not likely to happen under Mike McConnell...


[Related Where Does Negroponte Leave Intelligence? The director's surprising move to the State Department raises new questions about much-needed reforms in the spy community]



_____

Robert Baer, (“a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.”) has gone to what many consider to be the “unusual task” of writing a dissent about appointing retired Rear Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell - - and then having it published in “Time” magazine.



Among the important points that need to be called to your attention:


[…]

“…The CIA is hemorrhaging people, with the vast majority leaving to work for contractors, like Booz Allen. They're lured by higher salaries and double dipping (on top of their government retirement packages). They often end back up at the CIA with a green contractor's badge, doing pretty much the same job. The important difference is they answer to the company they work for, not the CIA.


“I'm told that today contractors outnumber staff employees. As one CIA officer told me, ‘You walk in the building and all you see is green badges, all doing the retiree shuffle, keeping their heads down, focusing on holding on to their jobs.’ ”


[…]


"You know as well as I do," he said. "Contractors won't take risks. You can't send them out into the field to recruit new sources. They know they make a mistake and they're gone." He's right. It's a lot easier to replace a contractor than it is to fire a government employee.”


[…]


“Rank and file at the CIA will look at McConnell's appointment as part of a trend shifting intelligence away from human sources, the CIA's bread and butter, to the Pentagon, the NSA, technology and outsourcing.”


[…]


“But bin Laden, like most terrorists, has dropped off the digital grid. To find him you need a warm body, not just cool gear.” (my emphasis)


Read the entire piece here: New Intel Chief: Wrong for the Job


####

Sunday, December 3, 2006

20061203 QandA with John Negroponte on C Span

20061203 QandA with John Negroponte on C Span

C-Span Question and Answer with John Negroponte[1]

December 3, 2006 John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence

Info: John Negroponte, discusses his job and other topical issues.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1104

More information is available at: U.S. News & World Report: U.S. intelligence

Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners. C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: John Negroponte, you started in your career in Vietnam with the embassy there and then you ended up in Iraq with the embassy, running that; any comparison between these two wars?

JOHN NEGROPONTE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: That’s a good question. I think about it a lot but I also – I don’t really see many analogies. The Vietnam situation was a Cold War situation. There was a very clear cut enemy and North Vietnam being supported by the Soviet Union in this Cold War conflict. I think the enemy was easier to define. We didn’t have has as many debates about the nature of the enemy as we seem to be having with respect to Iraq and then one interesting thing, is that the security situations were very different. In Vietnam, the cities were secure; the province capitals were secure. I walked around that country as an unarmed civilian for almost four years without ever having any serious brushes, so to speak. Whereas, in Iraq, even the capital is highly insecure; perhaps, one of the most insecure places in the country, so there are a lot of differences, probably more differences then there are similarities.

LAMB: What impact did that Vietnam experience have on the rest of your career?

NEGROPONTE: Well, first of all, it was a career-defining situation. My first post, actually, was in Hong Kong. I joined the Foreign Service 46 years ago, in mid-1960 and went out to Hong Kong as a Vice Counsel and then after Hong Kong I was sent to – I volunteered, actually, to study Vietnamese and to go out there, not really expecting that it would have such an impact on my life and my career and I ended up spending the next 13 years or so working on the Vietnam question, one way or another, either in Saigon or in Paris at the peace talks on Vietnam or working for Dr. Kissinger on the National Security Council staff, so I spent more than a decade working on the Vietnam question and those experiences, whether they were in Vietnam or in Paris or in Washington, are all pretty firmly etched in my memory.

LAMB: If somebody asked you – obviously, if a president said to you, you have all this experience around Vietnam what did you learn to warn us about the future, anything come to mind?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I mean a couple of things. Of course, numerous things if you want to talk about it extensively but I think first of all, I think I became fairly wary about foreign engagements and foreign involvement and very mindful of the importance of gauging one’s moves very carefully before becoming involved, on a large scale, in a foreign situation of this kind. Secondly, I think – I’ve come to realize not only from Vietnam but experiences I’ve had between Vietnam and now, the eight other different foreign postings that I’ve had in my career that it’s – while it’s relatively easy to get involved in some of these countries, situations tend not to resolve themselves as quickly as one might like and that very often, seeking an objective that looks like maybe it’d take maybe a few months or a year to accomplish, sometimes, is a matter of many, many years indeed. When you look at some of the involvements that we’ve become engaged in, around the world, some of them endure to this day. The Korean War, we still have thousands of troops there and so forth.

LAMB: Let me bring the audience up to date on your career and we have it on a screen so they can see it. It goes back – we start after what we just talked about in 1981 and it’s ’81 to ’85, Ambassador to Honduras; ’85 to ’87 Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; ’87 to ’89 Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Ambassador to Mexico ’89 to ’93; Ambassador to the Philippines ’93 to ’96; ’97 to ’01 you were out of government for a while as an Executive VP for Global Markets of the McGraw-Hill Companies; ’01 to ’04 in June, U.S. Permanent Representative of the United Nations, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq June of 2004 and to April 2005 and then, now, since April of 2005 Director of National Intelligence, DNI; are we leaving anything out?

NEGROPONTE: No, I think that covers it.

LAMB: Why did you get into this business?

NEGROPONTE: Except I would say, since you started in the latter part of my career starting from 1981 and we talked about Vietnam I really would say, probably, some of the most important assignments and situations that I saw were during that Vietnam War, particularly, being the Director for Vietnam on the National Security Council staff working for Dr. Kissinger.

LAMB: Why did you get into this business?

NEGROPONTE: I always wanted to be involved in diplomacy. I was fascinated by history; political science. I liked foreign languages. I’d studied – I’d taken by junior year abroad when I went to college and I was pretty set on joining the Foreign Service right from the time I went to college and in fact that’s what I did. I took the exam while I was still in college and entered shortly – several months after graduation.

LAMB: Define the – your job, Director of the Office of National Intelligence.

NEGROPONTE: The Director of National – well, I think I can try and do it for you in one sentence and I’d be pleased to try and elaborate on that later but I think the purpose of this office is to help integrate the foreign, the military and domestic intelligence activities, of our country, so that those resources can be best utilized for the defense of the homeland and of our interest overseas.

LAMB: Sounds kind of flip but after 19 months, how’s it going?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think another way of saying it is that the purpose of intelligence reform was to improve information sharing and increase the integration of the community and I really think it’s going pretty well. I think the 16 different federal agencies that are involved, in the intelligence community, in one way or another; they get it in terms of the importance of information sharing of integration. I think they see that there’s no single intelligence discipline, whether it’s signals intelligence or geospatial (ph) intelligence or human intelligence that has all the answers, so the effort does have to be integrated, it has to be collaborative and I think everybody’s working together on that basis.

LAMB: U.S. News and World Report were reported in their November 13th issue have you on the cover, David Kaplan (ph) and Kevin Whitelaw (ph) wrote the piece. They said in the piece that the Office of National Intelligence Agency cooperated with them; I want to ask you did you read it of course?

NEGROPONTE: Yes, I did.

LAMB: Is it accurate?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think it’s fine, yes.

LAMB: The one thing I wanted to ask you about at the beginning, (INAUDIBLE) says within weeks the White House is expected to approve over 30 DNI recommendations on how to improve the flow of intelligence, is that right and can you give us a hint as to the kind of recommendations you’re going to make?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think they’re probably referring to a report that we have sent up to the Congress on information sharing, which is now publicly available and it sets forth guideline – various types of guidelines for information sharing but again, I would stress that what I think is working well here, is that everybody recognizes the importance of working together and I think that’s the key element in the situation.

LAMB: Are the figures right that there are 100,000 people working in intelligence at a budget of $44 billion a year and that you have 1250 people working directly for you?

NEGROPONTE: Those are approximately correct figures. We don’t – we have never commented on the intelligence budget itself. We have confirmed that we have close to 100,000 personnel working across the intelligence community, in its entirety and yes, I have about 1200 people working in my directorate.

LAMB: And what kind of budget authority do you have over all these different agencies?

NEGROPONTE: Well that’s one of the features of the intelligence reform legislation. It gave me quite significant budget authority. I prepare what is known as the National Intelligence Budget. It is I who – and my office that recommends that budget to the Office of Management and Budget and to the President and so, it is a substantial authority, designs to try and help rationalize and harmonize budget proposals that come from across the community in its entirety, so it’s a significant authority and I think it represents an important step forward towards consolidating that kind of authority in the hands of one institution.

LAMB: How often do you personally see the President during the daily briefings?

NEGROPONTE: Well, one of the – both the satisfactions and challenges of this job, is that I get to see the President every day when he receives his daily intelligence briefing. The President normally is briefed six days a week, Monday through Saturday for about a half hour from – usually from 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning and whenever he is in Washington, I attend those briefings. If he’s traveling, as he is now, for example, there is a briefer from the intelligence community who travels with him and who gives him his briefing materials, during the course of those trips but when we’re back in Washington, I’m present there when the briefing is presented to the President, the Vice President, the Chief of Staff Mr. Joshua Bolten and Mr. Hadley, the National Security Advisor, so there’s six of us in the room every morning for a half hour going over these issues.

LAMB: Do you have to prepare and if you do, how long does it take you for these briefings?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I certainly read the material that’s going to be presented to the President and sometimes, although not very often, have some comments of my own as to the suitability of the material but I certainly read it. I get an advanced copy of it the night before, so I read it then and then I usually give it another read, just an hour or so before the President is briefed at eight o’clock in the morning to make sure that I’ve got the facts at my fingertips.

LAMB: If the average person were sitting in that room with no prior knowledge about anything and just listened every day to that briefing, would they be alarmed?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I don’t think – I mean first of all, the purpose intelligence is to inform. It’s one of many tools designed to help decision makers make national security decisions. It’s certainly not intended to alarm. I think that most people attending the briefings would not be surprised at the kinds of subject matter that is discussed. It’ll be international terrorism; it’ll be the latest developments with respect to al-Qaida and what we think they may or may not be doing; it’ll have to do with some of the hotspots around the world, whether it’s Iraq or Iran or North Korea and then there’ll be materials that are related to particular events or meetings that the President himself might have coming up on his schedule, whether it’s a trip to Europe or to Jordan like he’s undertaking right at this moment or some international leader who’s coming to town and whom he’s about to meet and maybe there’ll be a discussion of issues related to that particular country.

LAMB: What I was really getting at, is that you know we went through a period after 9/11 where we had a lot of warnings that you know, the level was moved up to yellow to orange and all that stuff; that seems to have stopped and is there a reason why it has stopped?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I can’t comment on what happened way back then because to be honest with you, I was working in another job and I wasn’t that focused at the time. I was with the United Nations and then in Iraq but certainly during the time that I’ve been there, threat information is discussed, from time-to-time, particularly, when there’s something that seems to be particularly important or particularly imminent but we do make an effort to keep these kinds of reports in the proper perspective; try to make sure that the threats are evaluated as well as they possibly can before we surface them; that kind of information for our customers to try to make sure that people don’t overreact to particular situations but sometimes there really are serious situations that have to be dealt with, for example, for a while there last summer, we were getting a fairly steady stream of information about this plot that was developing in the United Kingdom to blow up some airliners that were going to take – go on transatlantic flights, so that was a very serious situation. I mean we were staying as closely abreast of that as we could.

LAMB: It’s often reported that the President is not curious. That’s what the – is said often in columns and stuff like that. From your experience, in these meetings, is he curious?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I would certainly say that he’s a very, very interested customer for intelligence and very interested in the subject matter and now that he’s been the President for six years, he’s very, very familiar with the different issues and the different strands of information that we’ve been following over all of these years and I’d say without, you know, much fear of contradiction that from a point of view of what’s happened, during the past six years, he’s probably the best-informed person in the room when those briefings are being given.

LAMB: How does the media do, from your perspective, as you watch? I mean you get – you pick up that paper every day and you know what’s going on and you read in the paper certain things and how often do you shake your head and say, they have not a clue as to what they’re talking about?

NEGROPONTE: Oh, I think it’s very situationally dependent. I read papers, just like I would imagine you do every day. I read them quite carefully. In fact, I read a couple of newspapers first thing in the morning before I read anything else, so like everyone else, I am very dependent and reliant on open source material for an important body of knowledge that I need to work with. Sometimes they’ll get stuff wrong; sometimes they’ll put out something from one particular source who happens to have an axe to grind or only knows one side of a particular issue but that just depends on the situation. Sometimes it depends on the reporters, so.

LAMB: The day we’re taping this the leak came out from the Stephen Hadley memo, to the President on Mr. Malaki over in Iraq and I just wonder, do you ever have this problem in your organization, having leaks like this come out and why do you suspect these kind of things get out?

NEGROPONTE: Well, it’s actually one of the – I mean you’re touching on what I find one of the more frustrating aspects, well, of our work and if there’s been a disappointment in the 18 months that I’ve been the Director of National Intelligence, it’s been a number of these leaks of sensitive intelligence information and I’ve always found that very disappointing. I’m kind of old school about these things and I find that – frankly I find it quite shocking when people put out this kind of information and I think it undermines the policy process and obviously, can cause diplomatic complications, as well, not to mention the fact that often it – these leaks involve the release of highly classified information with potential damage to our national security.

LAMB: When reading Michael Gordon’s (ph) piece in the New York Times, this morning, you get the sense that somebody wanted this out and that he ended up seeing the entire memo and was able to copy it and put it in the paper. How do you, you know, how do you not have this happen in your office? How do you avoid it?

NEGROPONTE: Well, a number of things. I mean first of all, I think 99.9 percent of all of our personnel are very disciplined, a loyal, dedicated professional workforce and you know, I wouldn’t want to go through this interview without emphasizing that point. We have a superb workforce; very committed to the national security of our country and I don’t think – and they know the responsibility of working with this – the kind of material they do, so I think by and large, I think the nation’s secrets are in extremely good hands but you get the occasional aberration where somebody, for some personal agenda of their own, whether it’s they feel they want to take a policy into their own hands; they want to cause one of our political leaders some kind of complication they will engage in these kinds of activities of the unauthorized release of this kind of information and it’s very, very unfortunate. How you deal with it, of course, is you’ve just got to police it as best you can. Certainly, if it involves the release of classified information, let’s say some intelligence that has – technical intelligence that has been collected that – where the sources and methods are highly classified we will often file a crimes report to the Justice Department; ask them to investigate the matter. There are a number of these investigations going on, at the moment.

LAMB: Have they ever gotten to the bottom of how the information got out from the NSA on collecting the telephone information – telephone calls?

NEGROPONTE: No but that is certainly one of the incidents which is being investigated and hopefully, they will get to the bottom of that situation but that’s one way. Sometimes, administratively, it’s possible to identify the source of a leak. Maybe there isn’t enough there to – for prosecution; maybe it wasn’t a crime but it turns to have been an egregious error in judgment and then we can take administrative action to try to prevent ...

LAMB: So how long …

NEGROPONTE: And I want to repeat I just don’t think that this is – even though this is grist for the mill here in Washington and for the media whenever one of these documents gets out, I don’t want you to have the impression that there’s just a cascade of these things flowing out from the intelligence community because I don’t believe that’s the case.

LAMB: But the other side of this is how often does an administration want them out? I mean you could come up with a scenario on this latest memo, I have no idea, I just read it like you did (INAUDIBLE) a lot more (INAUDIBLE) they wanted it out for a certain reason.

NEGROPONTE: No, I can’t imagine that; I really can’t.

LAMB: Let me divert for a moment back to your own personal life and career, one of the things that pops out of any bio of you, is that you adopted five children in one country, at one time; what’s that story?

NEGROPONTE: It’s a wonderful story for me and my wife, Diana (ph). When we serving in Honduras, I was ambassador there back from 1981 to 1985, we adopted, at that time, two Honduran girls. They’re now ages 24 and 23 and then after we left Honduras, my wife went back to visit the country several times and as a consequence, of which, we adopted three more children, over the years, from Honduras, so we now have five, ages 24 all the way down to 13 and like any other parents of children, we’re very, very proud and they are the joy of our lives.

LAMB: Why did you do it?

NEGROPONTE: Well, we couldn’t have children, naturally, of our own and we decided and it was about the time that we had reconciled ourselves to that fact that we were serving in Honduras and so we decided that we, nonetheless, wished to have a family and that’s when we adopted our first daughter and then a year or so later we adopted the second one while we still in Honduras and then the others, in the ensuing years.

LAMB: You’re born in London.

NEGROPONTE: Right.

LAMB: Your father was …

NEGROPONTE: He was of Greek nationality; both my parents were Greek.

LAMB: Went to Phillips Exeter.

NEGROPONTE: Yes sir.

LAMB: And didn’t you go, at the same time, with Porter Goss went there?

NEGROPONTE: We went to Yale together.

LAMB: Oh Yale.

NEGROPONTE: Yes.

LAMB: Did you know him?

NEGROPONTE: Yes, I did, in fact. Mr. Goss and I were classmates at Yale.

LAMB: He’s the former head of CIA and …

NEGROPONTE: Right he was and we even took a course together, which we both remember.

LAMB: The man who currently runs the CIA, General Hayden, was the Head of the NASA Security Agency and was your deputy, are you at a disadvantage is what my question is that they’ve had all this experience in intelligence and you have not. You’ve been the diplomat.

NEGROPONTE: You know, I really don’t think so and first of all, I think it’s, in a way, a question of how you define experience with intelligence. I’ve been an ambassador five times, so I’ve had CIA stations working in my embassies, reporting directly to me so I’ve overseen their activities. I’ve been a consumer of intelligence, all these years and if you think about it, in the early part of my career, I also generated quite a bit of intelligence. It was intelligence overtly obtained but I was a political reporting officer in those, almost four years, I spent in Vietnam traveling around the countryside, reporting on political, economic and military developments; generating literally hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of reports, so I was what you would call, I guess, you know, an overt intelligence collector, just like an attache would be, a military attache that some embassy have (INAUDIBLE), so I believe I’ve quite a bit of experience with both the collection and the use and the management of intelligence activities.

LAMB: What does it mean to you, in your job that Secretary Rumsfeld is leaving and you get Robert Gates who used to run the CIA, in that job? What does it mean to the whole idea of the transformation and the way intelligence is collected?

NEGROPONTE: Well, first of all, one can’t be responsible for overseeing the nation’s intelligence activities without having a very good, cooperative and strong relationship with the Pentagon, since a number of our agencies are embedded in our military establishment; the NSA, the National Security Agency, the Geospatial Agency (ph) and the National Reconnaissance Office, so …

LAMB: Is it 80 percent of the budget, at least?

NEGROPONTE: Well, we don’t talk about the exact percentages. I’ve seen that figure out there but I wouldn’t place total confidence in it but in any case, we have to work with the military. The military are – and the Pentagon, it’s an indispensable partner in the national intelligence effort. I had an excellent relationship – I have an excellent relationship with Mr. Rumsfeld. I think the fact that Bob Gates is coming back to government service is a wonderful thing. He replaced me, you mentioned in my biographic sketch that I was once the Deputy National Security Advisor under Colin Powell. That was at the end of the Reagan Administration when President Bush Sr. took over and he brought Bob Gates in as the Deputy National Security Advisor, so he replaced me and I had worked with him very closely when he was the Deputy Director of the CIA and look forward very much to working with him again.

LAMB: What would people that work around you or work for you say about you, if you weren’t in the room?

NEGROPONTE: I don’t know.

LAMB: I mean what would they say is your strength and why you’re in this job?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I don’t know. I’d like to think they’d say it was my experience than …

LAMB: But what has that experience done for you to give you, you know, the insight into how to deal with this? You’ve got a job that – I assume you wake up in the middle of the night sometimes and wonder what’s going on around the world.

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think certainly the experience, the dealing closely with national security issues from various perspectives, not only diplomatic but working in the White House, as we just talked about, so familiarity with the policy process; how intelligence and information is used to ultimately make decisions. I guess I’d like to say, perhaps – I’d like to think that they’re saying that he keeps – that he has a strong team. I value, very much, having a strong, capable, experienced collaborators and I believe I’ve pulled together a very good team and they’ve stayed with me for these past 18 months and I hope they’ll stay with me as long as I’m in the job.

LAMB: Sixty-seven years old?

NEGROPONTE: Yes sir.

LAMB: You going to stay with it for a while?

NEGROPONTE: Well, till the – I mean my plan, in my own mind at least, I visualize staying with it through the end of this administration and then I think, probably that’ll be about the right time to pack it in.

LAMB: But is there ever a time when we get from you, either in a book form or in a conversation or do you even feel this way, where you say, let me just – if somebody said, you know, give me a primer on how this world works. I mean you know a lot; you’ve seen a lot and when you’re outside looking in we can’t tell what you’re spending the $44 billion on and we’ve seen the intelligence go through problems, in the past, where they didn’t know something was going on, how are we getting money’s worth in all this and what would you tell somebody from your experience?

NEGROPONTE: Well, you’re really asking, I guess …

LAMB: Several.

NEGROPONTE: … several different questions but first, let me go to one where I thought you were going to go at first was, what – are you going to ever write something down about …

LAMB: Yes that …

NEGROPONTE: … your career and your life whether it was in diplomacy or in intelligence or whatever and I’ve thought about that and I’m not particularly tempted to write a book and never have been. I don’t keep copious personal notes of what I’ve done like some people do and that can be a blessing and a curse, depending, on the situation but what I would like to do and I started to do it when I had retired the first time, was maybe an oral history. The State Department has an oral history program; some universities do as well, Columbia; perhaps others and I wouldn’t mind sitting down after I retire, this second time around, sitting down for a few months and just giving people a big dump on my whole career; not for publication and not for my own – a book of my own or anything like that but for scholars and others to draw upon and refer to in the future when they’re studying these particular situations, so if they want to see what I thought about Vietnam or what I felt about Iraq or whatever, it’ll be there for somebody to look at and for scholars to research into, so …

LAMB: Any of those five kids that you have interested in following in your footsteps?

NEGROPONTE: Not directly but I do – there is one whose working for the United Nations World Food Program at the moment. She’s been doing that for last 2.5 years and now wants to get a Master’s in International Relations, so it’s conceivable that she would.

LAMB: But go back to having the five kids here in front of you and they say, all right, Dad tell us how to do what you’ve done, what would – what are the things you’d tell them?

NEGROPONTE: I mean first of all, there’s no substitute for hard work and studying your situation very carefully. Secondly, remember you’re not alone; you can’t – none of these things can be accomplished by one single individual through a virtuoso performance, so I’ve always put a great deal of weight on people, recruiting good people to collaborate with; I think those are – I think good people and then common sense. I mean I think that some of the government work isn’t rocket science, at least, most of it is not and it’s more a question of applying both the common sense and the strength of our upbringing to carrying out the public’s business. It’s a public trust. It’s a public responsibility and I think one’s got to approach it that way.

LAMB: What would you say has been done by the intelligence community and the budget’s gone way up, at least, according to this U.S. News and World Report article, over the last five to six years, what has been done to prevent another 9/11?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I think a number of things and now, you’re going into the issue of how this money is being spent. One of them certainly is the creation of this National Counterterrorism Center. You remember after 9/11 and the various commissions, one of the criticisms was that we hadn’t done enough to connect the dots; that we hadn’t shared information horizontally across the community, so that if an event was occurring in, I don’t know, somewhere in the Pakistan/Afghan border area that suggested there might be some terrorist act being planned in the United States somewhere that information wasn’t getting quickly enough to the people who need to have it. Well that National Counterterrorism Center has now become the fusion center, the place where all federal intelligence information about terrorism goes to, without fail and then that center will make sure that it gets distributed – analyzed, distributed to where it has to go. I think that’s been a very, very important development.

Another has been the reform of the FBI. They now have a national security branch that puts emphasis on intelligence, on collecting intelligence, whereas, previously they were almost exclusively focused on law enforcement matters, so now there’s a better balance between strictly a law enforcement approach to things and factoring in the intelligence aspect, so I think that’s been important.

LAMB: Have you – going back to the Counterterrorism Center, have you stopped the stovepiping (ph) that was talked about so much?

NEGROPONTE: Well, you’ve got all these different databases coming in; you’ve got people in the Counterterrorism Center, from the FBI; from the CIA; from my office; from the Homeland Security Department, so it’s – and it’s like a – it’s an open floor where these workstations are and all the information’s being integrated there, so it’s really much harder to stovepipe. Besides, the director of that center, Admiral Scott ”Red,” holds a – he or his deputy hold a video teleconference with all the different agencies, three times a day, every day to compare notes about the latest threat information that’s come in. There’s a video conference at eight in the morning, at one in the afternoon, I think or at three in the afternoon and again, at one in the morning, every single day, so I think that yes, we’re definitely in a different place than we were prior to 9/11.

LAMB: Is there any evidence, through this last five years that the leak of some of this information has made it harder for you to gather this information around the world, the intelligence information? In other words, we’re always saying that if the enemy finds out that we can listen to their conversations then they stop talking on their cell phones or whatever but is there any evidence that we’ve been set back …

NEGROPONTE: Well, whenever – if there’s a leak or if an agent is compromised – we had a fairly prominent case in the Pentagon, in the Defense Intelligence Agency a few years ago. The Anna Montez (ph) case where it turned out that this lady who was working as an analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency was actually on the Cuban payroll; well, whenever something like that happens we do a damage assessment. Either the agency concerned will do a damage assessment and yes, sources get compromised, in situations like that and that caused us very, very significant harm with respect to our ability to collect against Cuba, no question about it.

LAMB: What about al-Qaida?

NEGROPONTE: There have been instances although I can’t recall one to my mind at this specific moment where information will have been leaked that might cause, not necessarily, compromise a source but perhaps cause a foreign intelligence service to be reluctant to share information with us. It’s an ever-present problem and it’s a risk one always runs and certainly when it comes to the revelation of sources and methods. This is very, very dangerous indeed. It’s a very laborious and painstaking process to develop sources around the world and obviously, if those sources are somehow compromised, lives get put in danger, information flows can dry up; these things do happen. They’re real.

LAMB: You’re going to have a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate; you’re going to have a new Chairman of the Intelligence Committees in both cases, what concerns you about this?

NEGROPONTE: Well, you know, I’m a great believer, first of all that when it comes to matters like this, politics really should stop at the waters edge. That intelligence is a critical component of our national security and I’d like to believe that we can deal with these issues on a bipartisan basis.

LAMB: Are you worried that they – the House and Senate might go back, have hearings; try again, go back over why we got into this war in the first place?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I you know, I – what will be, will be I guess.

LAMB: You expect it.

NEGROPONTE: I’m not certain. I hope that that can be kept to a minimum if it has to happen because we have so many issues that we’ve got to look forward to. We really need to focus on the problems we confront today and tomorrow rather than looking back at the past and then, perhaps, leave that as much as possible to the historians.

LAMB: If you had to recommend to the Congress or our President, how to change your office already, from what your experience is, is there anything you would do differently?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I rather believe in playing the cards I’m dealt. I was not particularly – I wasn’t involved at all, as a matter of fact, in the intelligence reform process. I was asked to take this job while I was Ambassador in Iraq and so, the whole intelligence reform situation was relatively new to me, so I – my attitude was, carry out the law that’s been passed and what I’ve told both the Administration and the Congress, is that I wanted a couple of years, one and half years or so, to see how it worked under existing circumstances and then, perhaps, only after that interval might I want to have a look at what, if anything, needs to be changed, so what we set for ourselves is a target of starting to look, maybe, early next year and take the first six months of next year to look at what, if changes, we might recommend but right now, I’m focused on trying to make the law, as it is written, work.

LAMB: Want to read you part of a column written by Tom Friedman (ph), I don’t know if you read it in this morning’s New York Times.

NEGROPONTE: Not yet.

LAMB: As a way to get you to tell us – I mean get the other side of this subject, as a way you can tell us what you think about this situation in Iraq. His first paragraph is this, ”Here is the central truth about Iraq today. This country is so broken it can’t even have a proper civil war. There are so many people killing so many other people for so many different reasons, religion, crime; politics that all of the proposals for how to settle this problem seem laughable. It was possible to settle Bosnia’s civil war by turning the country into a loose federation because the main parties to that conflict were reasonably coherent, with leaders who could cut a deal and deliver their faction.” What are you hearing that you want to comment on?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I went to – back to Iraq. I’ve been back twice since I’ve taken this job, about the same time last year, in December of last year and then just two to three weeks ago I was there and the leaders I met with, the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, the Interior Minister, I mean they counseled patience. I think – and I would agree with that. What I would also say to Mr. Friedman (ph) and to others, is that I think we’re reaching the point where we’ve got to let the Iraqis take more of the lead for their own security and their own defense and I think that’s important and Baghdad is obviously – the situation he’s describing really has to do with Baghdad itself. The key is Baghdad and that’s where the greatest amount of the civil strife is – has occurred and the greatest amount of violence but I believe that with the adequate deployment of Iraqi and U.S. forces, with the continued efforts to train and improve the Iraq Security Forces, particularly, their army that this kind of violence can be dampened down, over time, while the different political factions in Iraq work out their accommodations over the political future of Iraq because part of this has to do with fighting over whose going to control the political destiny of that country but I think that over time, this has really got to become more and more of an Iraqi problem and less and less of a U.S. one and I would hope that our forces can take more of a support role and a training role and fall more into the background rather than being in the lead in the months ahead.

LAMB: You were there for under a year.

NEGROPONTE: Nine months, yes.

LAMB: Nine months, what – if you spend nine months in that country as the ambassador, what do you see that we don’t see through the television lens far away?

NEGROPONTE: Well, of course, I got to travel the length and the breadth of the country. I got to see parts of the country where security was not a problem like Kurdistan. I went up there quite frequently. Got to work at – the time that I was there, of course, was when we had the first elections, which were a considerable success. If I have one regret about that period is that we were never able to dissuade the Sunni politicians from their boycott of those elections in 2005 – in January of 2005 and I think that that was a real setback for the political process. It’s a beautiful country and I think that one day when stability is restored, I think the potential for development of Iraq and the Iraqi nation is very great indeed.

LAMB: Let me read a little bit more from Mr. Friedman (ph). He says ”but Iraq is in so many little pieces now, divided among warlords, foreign terrorists, gangs, militias, parties, the police and the army that nobody seems able to deliver anybody. Iraq has entered a stage beyond civil war. It’s gone from breaking apart to breaking down. This is not the Arab/Yugoslavia any more, it’s Hobbs’ jungle.” Little bit more ”given this we need to face our real choices in Iraq which are 10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in phased withdrawal over 10 months and try to stabilize it some other way or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years.”

NEGROPONTE: Well, there are a lot of big ideas in there. I guess one point that I’d make, is that getting out, just leaving, seems to me not to be an option and the thought of leaving Iraq and allowing it to become – what I think one of the risks then would be that it would become a safe haven for al-Qaida to carry out its plans to spread Islamic extremism, its version of Islam to other parts of the Middle East and then to Western Europe and elsewhere and use it as a platform for conducting terrorist attacks. That’s what (INAUDIBLE) in his famous letter to Zarqawi about 1.5 years ago said, in that Iraq, from his point of view was a platform from which to spread their doctrine and their ideology to the neighboring countries and then beyond, so I don’t see leaving the country as an option so it seems to me that what we’re talking about here, is how do you find a kind of involvement by the United States that is somewhere – strikes a balance between the lead role that we’ve been playing for the last couple of years, several years and no role at all and it’s got – it seem to me to be some kind of middle ground there that has us continuing to be involved but shift great responsibility for what’s happening on the grounds to – and particularly, in Baghdad, to the government and the people of Iraq.

Now, Mr. Friedman (ph) refers to these sort of atomized groups and the fragmentation in Iraq but that to me simply highlights the importance of helping the government of Iraq try to build some strong and effective national institutions and that brings me back to the point I was making earlier, one of the national institutions that has a chance of helping restore order to Iraq, is the national army and to a lesser extent the police force, so it seems to me that one of the areas we really need to concentrate our efforts on is bolstering both the capabilities and the competence and the training and the equipment of the Iraqi Security Forces. That’s an issue on which I put a great deal of emphasis when I was ambassador there and I think it’s an area that deserves even greater emphasis today.

LAMB: Why did we need a $700 million embassy there and 3,000 people working in it, making it the largest embassy in the world?

NEGROPONTE: Well, my information’s a bit dated on the status of the planning for the embassy since I’m no longer working for the State Department but of course, a lot of the people at the embassy are security personnel and as the situation stabilizes and calms over the years, I think that will diminish, so I think that that 3,000 figure is an extremely high one, particularly, when you’re looking at the longer-term. I’ve run two of our largest embassies, in the world, the Embassy in Mexico City and that had 1800 people, if you counted all the 10 consulates that we had all over the – dotted all over the country of Mexico and we had 1700 people in the Philippines, so you know, I would imagine that it could be smaller than the figure you cite but I don’t doubt that Iraq is going to be a very, very important part and represent and very important interests in the United States for a number of years to come and so, I think the construction of that embassy is extremely important and it was also important that we get out of the Republican Palace that we’re using as our embassy now, which is, of course, symbolic of the past Iraqi history and move into a facility of our own.

LAMB: You’re -- I know he’s a predecessor, he wasn’t ambassador, Paul Bremmer, who you replaced.

NEGROPONTE: Right.

LAMB: Brought about the de-Baathification of the military there and in the country, was that a mistake because everybody writes that it is and you’ve seen it up close.

NEGROPONTE: Well, when I was there that was an issue that was debated. I’m not sure the – I’d call the de-Baathification itself a mistake. Certainly, the policies of the Baathists and the practices that were carried out under Saddam’s regime by the Bath Party were wrong and needed to be addressed and those who were most responsible needed to be punished. The debate was the extent of de-Baathification. How far down did you go since the people had to join the Baath Party in order to get their jobs, whether it was to be a schoolteacher or a university professor or a doctor or whatever, so there was a debate even when I was there, about how far down you go. Do you go down to the second level and the third level and the fourth level and so forth, so that’s really been the nature of the debate. Whom do you hold accountable and do you hold a large number of people accountable or do you really just go after the worst offenders and of course, we’re focused, at the moment and the Iraqi judicial system is focused on the worst offenders.

LAMB: What – if they execute Saddam Hussein by hanging next year, what impact will that have on that whole world over there? You see predictions that there’ll be riots and all that stuff, what do you think?

NEGROPONTE: I’m not certain, although, I think there are a lot of the Iraqis who want some kind of closure in this situation; many Iraqis and I think we’ll just have to see what happens. I think there are probably also some insurgents, some Sunni extremist insurgents who are fighting in the belief that – under the illusion that they may be fighting to bring Mr. Saddam back to power, so it could have the effect of actually discouraging some of the Sunni extremists but we’ll have to see how that situation plays itself out.

LAMB: We’ve got a couple minutes; as you look at your last two years in this job, what is the biggest threat to this country right now from an intelligence – what you know about intelligence in your opinion, in the terror world?

NEGROPONTE: Al-Qaida continues to plot against the West; against the United States interests around the world and there have been some plots again the United States homeland, so I think that the al-Qaida threat is – continues to be the most serious threat against United States interests today and I think we’re better prepared than we were before 9/11. We’re more vigilant. There are no guarantees but I think in the sense that both – to the extent that we’re both better prepared, better integrated, I think in that sense the country’s probably safer than it was prior to 9/11.

LAMB: Do you expect an attack?

NEGROPONTE: I think the – it’s hard to – I think it’d be wrong to get into this kind of prediction. I don’t think a terrorist attack would necessarily be surprising but I think that the important thing is to do the best we can; to know as much as we can about the plotting that’s going on; disrupt plots. Be on the offensive as we are against al-Qaida in various places around the world and do our best to disrupt them and preempt their activities through the effective collection of intelligence against these plots.

LAMB: If Senator Jay Rockefeller becomes the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee next year and he calls you in and he says you can have anything you want, what would you ask him for that you don’t have?

NEGROPONTE: Well, I’m not sure that I – that would be a very optimistic scenario and I’m not sure that it’s a very realistic prospect since we all have to operate within the budget constraints in which we live but what I think I would want to do, is continue – well, I think my reply would be Senator – Mr. Chairman, I want to continue building up those parts of our intelligence community that we’ve been focused on in the past several years; improve our human intelligence capability; strengthen our analytic capability; continue to rebuild our intelligence workforce that was de-rated and – during the 1990’s, after the end of the Cold War, so I think that the thrust of my reply would be I want to continue the building process that begun – that began in the wake of 9/11 and which I think is going to have to continue for a five to 10-year period ahead to build our intelligence community up to the kind of strength and capabilities and levels of experience that our country needs.

LAMB: Thank you Mr. Ambassador.

NEGROPONTE: Thank you.

END


[1] Tuesday, December 05, 2006

20061204 John Negroponte transcript posted on Joisting for Justice

John Negroponte transcript posted on Joisting for Justice

December 4th, 2006

Stephanie Dray, over at Joisting for Justice was kind enough to post the entire “C-Span Question and Answer with John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence,” for us.

It is a lengthy transcript but well worth the time for an excellent snapshot of many of the issues we face and for a glimpse at the man who currently heads-up the Office of National Intelligence.

This was terrible nice of Ms. Dray to do this and we owe her a big thank you and big container of spiced walnuts.

And oh, Ms. Dray, please say hi to Ammar and Maryam from the peripatetic gerbils at the Soundtrack Division.

Please see my previous post here.

####

Sunday, December 03, 2006

20061203 QandA with John Negroponte on C Span


QandA with John Negroponte on C Span

Transcript of December 3, 2006 C-Span Question and Answer with John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence

Sunday, December 3rd, 2006

Earlier this evening I took some time out from the column deadlines to watch this Sunday’s segment of the C-Span series “Question and Answer.”

This week’s segment featured the current director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, in a broad sweeping and illuminating discussion of his job, family, education and background, persistent leaks and other current events and topical issues.

Often I will listen to C-Span on the computer, in the background while I work away at the keyboard. But I enjoyed my break and I found myself glued to the TV and after the program was over, I looked-up the transcript.

More information is available on Director Negroponte and the Office of National Intelligence can be found at: U.S. News & World Report: U.S. intelligence

The transcript is available here. However, I usually don’t place much faith in the permanence of links outside of the Maryland Blogger Alliance and I’ll ask my colleague Stephanie Dray over at Joisting for Justice if she would consider putting the entire 8,280 word transcript on her web site because she has “jumps” available and can briefly introduce the transcript on her front page and then jump it to another page.


C-Span Question and Answer with John Negroponte

December 3, 2006 John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence

Info: John Negroponte, discusses his job and other topical issues.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1104


Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners. C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

BRIAN LAMB, HOST: John Negroponte, you started in your career in Vietnam with the embassy there and then you ended up in Iraq with the embassy, running that; any comparison between these two wars?

JOHN NEGROPONTE, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: That’s a good question. I think about it a lot but I also – I don’t really see many analogies. The Vietnam situation was a Cold War situation. There was a very clear cut enemy and North Vietnam being supported by the Soviet Union in this Cold War conflict. I think the enemy was easier to define. We didn’t have has as many debates about the nature of the enemy as we seem to be having with respect to Iraq and then one interesting thing, is that the security situations were very different. In Vietnam, the cities were secure; the province capitals were secure. I walked around that country as an unarmed civilian for almost four years without ever having any serious brushes, so to speak. Whereas, in Iraq, even the capital is highly insecure; perhaps, one of the most insecure places in the country, so there are a lot of differences, probably more differences then there are similarities.

LAMB: What impact did that Vietnam experience have on the rest of your career?

Read the rest here.

Newer Posts Older Posts Home