WASHINGTON, 21 August — Poor Congressman Gary Condit. Just when the press has become bored with the scandal of the congressman, a missing intern, and his two-month cover-up about their affair, intelligence specialists are now questioning his ability to serve on the House Intelligence Committee.
“This guy was made to order for blackmail, he was a perfect setup,” former CIA officer Duane Clarridge, told journalists last week.
As a member of the Intelligence Committee, Condit helps control a secret budget — estimated at $30 billion a year — which covers the nation’s 13 different intelligence agencies. He also has access to sensitive information ranked more sensitive than “top secret.”
The problem, as these security types see it, is the disparity between the tight background scrutiny anyone, but congressmen, undergo before getting access to national secrets.
Members of Congress who serve on the intelligence committees are excused from the usual polygraphs and intrusive questions and background checks.
“If you held Congressman Condit to the standard that intelligence professionals are held to, he wouldn’t be employed there any more,” former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Patrick Hughes recently told the Washington Times in an interview.
For lawmakers, though, the general view is that voters decide someone’s fitness for office, and party leaders choose whomever they want for the choice committee chairs.
“It is true congressmen are exempt from the normal security screening that people in the executive branch have to go through, and this does raise some security questions — because if he did what he is accused of doing, he would not qualify for security clearance in the executive branch,” Steven Aftergood, an analyst for security intelligence policy at the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists, told Arab News.
“Having said that, it is important to understand that the way our government is set up, we have a separation of powers, and members of Congress, who are elected by the American people, are in effect cleared by their constituents,” said Aftergood.
“It is very important to avoid a situation where we have one agency, such as the FBI, deciding who may, and who may not, have access to sensitive government information.”
“The result is that voters can elect a person who is reckless, there is that sort of logical flaw in that system. But I am more comfortable with that, than granting the FBI a veto over those who may have access,” said Aftergood.
“The fallback position, however, is for the committee leadership in the House, in this case, Mr. Gephardt, to say there is a problem here and we want you step down,” said Aftergood. “Because the Intelligence Committee is a select committee, and that means that its members are appointed by congressional leaders, and they can be asked to step down by the congressional leaders.”
Yesterday House Minority leader Richard Gephardt, who nominated Condit for the Intelligence Committee, just happened to be asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if Condit should step down from the intelligence panel.
Gephardt, true to partisan form, said: “I don’t think we ought to rush to judgment on this case. There have been a lot of facts that came out, and then some have been retracted. We have a legal process in the country and in the House when people are accused of wrongdoing. The first think you presume is that they’re innocent until proven guilty. And then you let the process work to find out what happened and what didn’t happen.
“Obviously, if he has broken rules or done something that’s wrong, he’ll have to stand the consequences,” Gephardt said.
At this point, NBC host Tim Russert asked the Missouri Democrat whether Condit is “a man of honor.” Without blinking an eye, Gephardt replied: “He is.”
The majority of folks back in Condit’s district, Modesto, California, do not seem to agree. Recent polls amongst the congressman’s constituents indicate that, as things now stand, they would not re-elect him.
