http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Article.asp?ID=2156

RUMOR MILL NEWS HAS BEEN SAYING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING! WHY HASN'T HE BEEN FORCED TO RESIGN?

P.S. Scripps-McClatchy Western Services is the parent company of the Modesto Bee and the Fresno Bee, the two newspapers in Condit's area that called for him to resign.

---

Intelligence pros say Condit is a security risk
Monday, August 20, 2001

By MICHAEL DOYLE
Scripps-McClatchy Western Service

America's spymasters, past and present, are now intrigued by the controversy surrounding Rep. Gary Condit.

Some, including former intelligence officers who rose to the highest ranks, admit they're unhappy with what they've learned about the lawmaker who serves on the House intelligence committee.

"This guy was made to order for blackmail," former CIA officer Duane "Dewey" Clarridge said Friday. "This guy is a perfect setup."

Clarridge retired from the CIA in 1988, after serving as chief of the agency's divisions in Europe and Latin America and as head of the Counter-Terrorist Center. He never knew Condit, who was elected to Congress in 1989 and who joined the intelligence panel in 1999, but Clarridge has heard a lot about him in the past three months.

As a member of what's formally called the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Condit helps control the secret budget - estimated at $30 billion a year - covering the nation's 13 different intelligence agencies. He has access to sensitive information that goes well beyond Top Secret.

The flood of allegations about Condit's private life, following the disappearance of his friend Chandra Levy, has thus captured the attention of those Condit oversees. There isn't unanimity - former CIA Director James Woolsey, for one, said in an interview he's seen no sign that Condit's private actions are relevant to his intelligence committee service - but there is plenty of chatter in intelligence circles.

"They're talking about it a lot," former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Patrick Hughes said in an interview.

Hughes served as head of the DIA between 1996 and 1999, and testified before Condit in the intelligence committee's tightly secured, windowless room in the Capitol. After noting the kind of strict background scrutiny most people face before getting access to national secrets, Hughes said he would "cut off (Condit's) access" until more questions were resolved.

"To me, it's one of fairness in applying standards," said Hughes, a retired Army lieutenant general. "If you held Congressman Condit to the standard that intelligence professionals are held to, he wouldn't be employed there any more."

Members of Congress chosen by party leaders for the intelligence committees are exempt from the usual polygraphs and intrusive questions wielded by executive branch investigators. That's as it should be, according to lawmakers and others who cite the constitutional separation of powers between executive and legislative branches.

"That issue got decided by James Madison and his colleagues more than 200 years ago," Woolsey said.

Woolsey served as CIA director from 1993 to 1995, before House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt tapped Condit for the intelligence panel. Now an attorney in Washington, Woolsey said that, as a security issue, he was not particularly troubled by Condit's actions.

"Whatever one might say about Condit's judgment in other areas, I've heard no complaints about his handling of intelligence matters," Woolsey said.

For almost everyone but members of Congress, security risk is controlled in part through an extensive background investigation. A document called the Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/14, issued the year before Condit joined the intelligence committee, spells out the tough standards non-politicians face before they get access to Sensitive Compartmented Information.

"The individual must be stable, trustworthy, reliable, (and) of excellent character, judgment and discretion," the directive states.

Individuals granted such high clearances are supposed to report even their own activity when it potentially conflicts with specific security guidelines. One, Guideline D, states that "sexual behavior is a security concern if it involves a criminal offense ... may subject the individual to undue influence or coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion."

Background checks, according to the directive, include interviews with four references who "have social knowledge of the subject." Two neighbors are also supposed to be interviewed, the security directive states, and "cohabitants, relatives...and law enforcement officials" are also likely interview subjects if the case warrants.

For lawmakers, though, the view is that voters rule on someone's fitness for office, and party leaders choose who they want for plum assignments.

"None of those people want to be investigated," Clarridge said.
© 2001 Scripps Howard News Service

From:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com