Kerry on intelligence
Robert Novak
June 10, 2004
WA****NGTON -- Under attack by Republicans for proposing deep cuts in the
intelligence budget a decade ago, John Kerry is trying to justify them as
efforts to slice away ****k. The problem is that during the Senate debate
on
Feb. 19, 1994, Kerry was taken to task by two pillars of the then
Democratic
majority: Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.
DeConcini, the Intelligence Committee chairman, and Inouye, the
Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chairman, assailed Kerry's
unsuccessful
efforts to cut the intelligence budget. DeConcini calculated it would cost
$1 billion in intelligence spending that year and $5 billion over the next
five years. Both senators suggested Kerry did not recognize the dangers
existing then after the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
In
opposing Kerry's amendment, DeConcini declared, "We no longer seem immune
from acts of terrorism in the United States." Inouye asked: "Is this the
time to cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of
attacks?"
Since George W. Bush's re-election campaign has made this dispute an
issue,
Sen. Kerry has faced a choice. He could admit an error in past judgment,
which is never easy or perhaps prudent for a presidential candidate. Or,
he
could defend what seems a politically vulnerable position. Kerry has taken
the latter course. When this column asked about Kerry's past position this
week, campaign spokesman Chad Clanton replied: "You bet, John Kerry voted
against business as usual in our intelligence community. It is no secret
that we've got some serious problems with our intelligence."
The issue, first raised by Bush in March, has been revived by published
accusations that the president's campaign has distorted the senator's
record. This is a question worth exploring because it addresses Kerry's
judgment as an experienced public servant. His unfortunate charges of
American war crimes in Vietnam can be excused as the excesses of an angry
27-year-old war veteran. In 1994, he was 50 years old with 10 years
experience as a U.S. senator and was a member of the Senate Intelligence
Committee.
The defense by the campaign is that Kerry's proposed intelligence cuts
were
aimed at what "was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors."
Clanton added: "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry does not sup****t every
special spending project sup****ted by Halliburton and other defense
contractors."
While the Kerry campaign suggests the senator somehow foretold the 1995
"slush fund" scandal over the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
hoarding
$1 billion in unspent funds, he never mentioned the NRO in 1994. His
amendment, offered without co-sponsors, would have cut intelligence across
the board.
In the floor debate, DeConcini said his committee had pruned the
intelligence budget by $1.2 billion for that fiscal year, and that is "as
deep as the intelligence community can withstand." He added "it makes no
sense for us to close our eyes to developments around the world." Noting
imminent bombing in the Balkans, Inouye warned "we are putting blindfolds
over our pilots' eyes."
In the debate, Kerry did not respond to criticism from DeConcini and
Inouye. He did not address intelligence specifically, much less single out
****k barrel projects in the intelligence budget that his campaign now says
he was targeting. However, 10 days earlier on the Senate floor, Kerry
declared: "The madness must end."
Kerry's amendment failed 75 to 20 -- opposed by his Massachusetts
colleague, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy; a future Intelligence Committee
chairman,
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida; and the Appropriations Committee chairman,
Sen.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
The senator is described by campaign aides as attempting to restore human
intelligence to learn about terrorism, drug trafficking and international
crime. But at an Intelligence Committee meeting in 1995, Kerry asked
"whether we should use paid clandestine human assets in situations where
the
ramifications of discovery are so great and the risk of U.S. security is
so
minimal."
Such suspicion of human intelligence had been the liberal line since the
early 1970s, grinding down CIA assets. Indeed, Kerry's assault on
intelligence spending had been urged by liberals for the past quarter of a
century. The presidential candidate now attempts to rationalize his past
conduct rather than repudiate it.
|
