European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - October 07, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse Monday october 7, 1991 the stars and stripes Anthony Lewis Page 13commentary Gates Only adds to intelligence corruption e Senate uf4diiunc the Senate hearings on Robert Gates nomination to be director of Central intelligence have served history in a particular and important Way. They have opened a new window on the Reagan administrations corruption of our governmental process. The Issue is of course not financial corruption. It is something More internal and More menacing. That is the deliberate distortion by those sworn to Tell the truth of the facts on which the president of the United states must make fundamental foreign policy decisions. William Casey president Reagan a director of Central intelligence was a Man who would not let facts get in the Way of preconceived ideas a or rules get in the Way of what he wanted to do. He had contempt for Law As a constraint on those who hold Power. Casey was a True believer in the soviet Union As the omnipresent evil Empire a far truer than Ronald Reagan. For one thing he bought the theory that the world s terrorism was directed by the . 1 when his Cia did not support such notions he insisted that it do so. A Gates pandered to Casey a Agenda a Melvin a. Goodman a former ranking intelligence analyst at the Agency testified. Harold p. Ford an honoured Veteran of the Cia and a reluctant witness said he Felt obligated to testify that Gates had a skewed the critical witnesses said certain matters had been a a politicized in the Casey Gates Era. They included estimates of soviet strength Nicaragua Iran and the assassination attempt on the Pope. A a Gates role was to corrupt the process and the ethics of intelligence on All of these issues a Goodman said. A the was Casey a filter in the directorate of Gates dismissed those charges As but there really is no question a on the Public record a that their essence is Correct. A memorandum written by Gates in 1984 attacked the Reagan administration a policy on Central America As too soft. The Only right answer it said was direct military action to overthrow the sandinista government in Nicaragua. Was that an intelligence officers factual report of course not. It was a policy argument from a Strong ideological position. Or think about the Ciao a intelligence findings on Iran made under Gates direction. They told Reagan that the soviet Union was in a position to take Over Iran a that our Only Chance was to forge ties with moderate forces inside the islamic Republic s regime. Those Quot findings went against the facts available to the Cia. There were no a a moderates in the iranian regime. The purpose of the findings indeed was to provide Reagan with an excuse to Trade arms to the mythical moderates in Exchange for hostages. On the soviet Union Gates dismissed any idea that Mikhail s. Gorbachev was a serious reformer or was reducing the soviet threat to us. He took that position not in Subtle memorandums but in Blunt a and totally wrong a Public speeches. On the papal assassination Gates denied that he had pushed the theory of soviet involvement in the shooting by Mehmet Ali Aga. But a 1985 memorandum from Gates directorate of intelligence was headed Quot a can a attempt to kill the Pope the Case for soviet sen. Warren Rudman r-n.h., charged angrily that the testimony against or. Gates was based on a innuendo and but the testimony came from men and women who had experienced the very corruption they described. It and patriotic concern for them to speak out. The real question i think is Why someone As intelligent As Rudman a and ordinarily As fair minded a should want to protect Robert Gates from the consequences of his known record. Or Why republicans on the intelligence committee usually nonpartisan should press so hard to confirm a Man who they know has distorted intelligence reports and lied to the committee. Stansfield Turner a former director argued on the oped Page of the new York times that Gates should be confirmed if he a unequivocally rejects the Casey period at the Cia As a far from doing that or. Gates Brazener it out. He is asking the Senate to Wink at the corruption of Power. C the new York Timos William f. Buckley world events bolster need for Star wars one is presumptively sceptical about great theater coming from the White House having to do with such questions As National Security. As a Rule it is better to Inch up on such matters As unilateral disarmament but the Case for the initiatives of George Bush is somewhere Between plausible and compelling. The closest estimate i have seen of the Power of the soviet unions strategic Arsenal is 400 million times the Power of the bomb that went off Over Hiroshima. But just As the question became soon after nuclear firepower became redundant in terms of its capacity to devastate less what the enemy could do than what the enemy intended to do it is so now. The leaders of the soviet Union Are not going to Start an aggressive International nuclear War. Were they to do so we would even under or. Bush a plan have at our disposal More than enough to make our own death rattle so to speak contagious. As for the matter of preparedness we have reason to be comforted by the general who said that our bomber Fleet could be put Back on the Alert system in exactly 24 hours. In terms of the game of nations it is Safe to say that we Are at this Point Safe. The most important element in Bush s speech is his Hearty endorsement of the a Star wars project for which he seeks $5 billion probably enough to revive the sleepy Little thing. This is True foresight because the interval Between now and when an estimated 25 countries will have a nuclear weapon is approximately six to 10 years. And the interval Between now and when we might have an atmospheric defense system capable of knocking out the incidental missile is a about six to 10 years. An interesting question was dropped by Bush and its reception by the soviet Union will be a key to whether mature military strategic thought is going on there. The Iraq of this world will have nuclear weapons in five to 10 years but probably not delivery systems that can Span the Ocean until much later. This Means that the immediate profit from a developed strategic defense initiative program will be for those countries that might be targets of intermediate Range missiles of the kind that might be fired from such As Iraq Iran and Libya. The soviet Union is within that Range. Now the soviet Union has been strident Over the years in insisting that the abm treaty of 1972 excludes the kind of testing in the atmosphere that might Advance the a Star wars idea. President Bush has asked in effect for a modification of the treaty in order to permit such experimentation As might Lead the Way to the so called a Brilliant pebbles anti missile system. The soviet answer to this tends to be a spastic a a done to we Are of course free to rescind the abm treaty upon giving six months notice. We should have done this 10 years ago. Former Secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger was in favor of rescission but somehow president Reagan never got around to it in part because it had become a kind of Liberal Sanctuary to which disarmament fetishists took pilgrimages every few Days sewing the seeds of alarm that suggested that to Amend the abm treaty was to say goodbye to disarmament. But now the soviet Union is facing reality. It is that there is Zero strategic threat to its own survival. The United states poses less of a threat to the soviet Union right now than Armenia does. And Moscow knows that to spend Money to continue its mad course of military enlargement is quite simply pointless and is done at the expense of what Russia most urgently needs which is consumer production. On the other hand the soviet team headed by Viktor Karpov is re actively Tough on any proposal to Amend the 1972 treaty. Enter reality. Is it not likelier that the heartland of Russia might one Day be menaced by a country that Isnit further away than 1,500 Miles than by a country 4,000 Miles away so that much will be Learned from the soviet unions reaction to the a Star wars idea. Here at Home we need a showdown with those Liberal senators who Are sceptical about Star wars As an act of Faith. With them or. Bush needs to have a final showdown if necessary on election Day 1992. He May need to surrender his b-2�?Ts in order to win this one and even his new submarine. But it will be Worth it. And support for such a system As could end by protecting Russia from nuclear attack would be a wonderfully ironic and pleasant end to the old wat. In the 21st Century. R he nit fsii1 Pohs j Fin do. A it
