WSJ Op-Ed Piece on Bolton's Confirmation Hearings and Senatorial Reform

[Annie]

I have to agree:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006556

RUNNING THE GAUNTLET

John Bolton vs. the Moral Cowards
The Senate confirmation process needs to be reformed.

BY OTTO REICH
Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N. publicly unmasked the campaign which has been underway to discredit him and derail his nomination. They also demonstrated once again the need to reform the Senate confirmation process, which has become so politicized that it is not serving its constitutional purpose. I have strong opinions on the Bolton hearings in particular--and Senate hearings in general--since in the past two decades I have been confirmed twice by the Senate and smeared once.

It was stated repeatedly at the hearings that Mr. Bolton and I tried to get an intelligence analyst--referred to as "Mr. Smith"--fired, or tried to block his promotion or to get him transferred. I cannot speak for Mr. Bolton (though having known him since 1981, I can attest to his integrity). But I can speak for myself: In 2002, after consulting with many of my interagency colleagues about how to handle the loss of confidence in Smith's judgment, I most certainly did complain to Smith's supervisor about the consistently unacceptable quality of his work. My actions are now being distorted and attributed to Mr. Bolton in order to harm his nomination.

Though my office is a 15-minute cab-ride from the Capitol, and I'd made myself available to offer testimony, I was never summoned. Yet several anti-Bolton former and present officials were asked to testify, in private and in public. Why were some witnesses called but not others? The reason is clear to anyone who has been nominated by a president to a Senate-confirmable position, especially before the Foreign Relations and the Judiciary Committees.

Too often those hearings are used by senators and their staff to pursue an ideological agenda and engage in personal destruction. If they cannot force a nominee to withdraw, hearings can be blocked by only one senator, while he and his staff spread scurrilous rumors about the nominee--who is unable to counter because he is told that "it will hurt your chances" if a hearing ever takes place. This happened to me in 2001, but I was fortunate to have been nominated by a principled president whose small army of lawyers looked into the false allegations, recognized the campaign as one conducted by moral cowards unwilling to face their victims, and then appointed me to office using his constitutional power of "Recess Appointment."

I know quite a bit about the spurious charge being used to try to stop Mr. Bolton. As the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, it was my responsibility to ensure that policy makers had the best possible analysis on which to base our decisions, which in some cases involved life-and-death matters. In my opinion, and that of many of my fellow "intelligence consumers," we were not receiving the best possible intelligence analysis from this highly placed officer. I documented complaints about the analyst in question in a classified three-page letter which I handed to the supervisor. I specifically stated that I did not wish the officer punished in any way, but that I did expect from the intelligence community a less biased and more professional analysis, which this individual had proven incapable of providing.

Despite repeated phone calls over the next four months to the supervisor, who said "we're working on it," no corrective action was taken by the agency in question. I am proud of my actions and only wish that more policy makers would question why some intelligence is consistently wrong, biased or politicized. Why is it easy for critics to believe that Executive Branch officials will "politicize" intelligence but not an analyst? Most analysts are good, but human, and humans err. When one errs consistently, and when his errors are exposed by others in the intelligence apparatus, as was the case of "Smith," then it's time for someone to step forward and say we can do better. That's what I did.

John Bolton has served our nation well in many posts under three presidents. He deserves to be confirmed. But regardless of the outcome of the hearings, he has provided another valuable service: he has revealed Senate hearings to be the weapon of choice of vicious and anonymous staffers and their narcissistic bosses to engage in character assassination and ideological vendettas. But more important to our national security in this time of war, he has uncovered a dangerous willingness by some senior intelligence officers to protect underlings who have been promoted to their highest level of incompetence. The intelligence community is our first line of defense against today's enemies. In seven different government positions, I have worked with hundreds of these skilled and brave officers and have witnessed their unselfish dedication to our nation. Practically any of them could make much more money working for a private consulting firm and thus provide a more comfortable life for his family than the inadequate government salary allows. When a bad apple is allowed to spoil the barrel of intelligence information, then not only does the reputation of good officers suffer; so, too, does the security of our nation.

Mr. Reich, formerly President Bush's special envoy for the Western Hemisphere, is a consultant in Washington.