Gingrich in March '01: Clinton Administration reduced CIA's efforts in Afghanistan

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

REP. SKELTON: I have two quick questions and I'd like, Mr. Speaker -- Gingrich, if I may, address them to you. The first is, you mentioned terrorism and how -- and you're correct on this -- how we should all be concerned, and you mentioned that we don't presently have the intelligence that we should have. Do you have, in an unclassified manner, recommendations along the line how we can increase our intelligence capability?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me -- thank you for your concern. Let me first of all say I want to repeat what Senator Hart said, and that is, I want to thank General Boyd (sp) and the staff, because I do think the depth of the effort was substantial and was not sustainable by the commissioners. It was an entire team effort.

I think the easier thing to look at -- and I think -- I know that you know this very well, from a classified standpoint -- is that we for the last 20 years have had a bias in favor of satellites and against human intelligence. We've also had a legal structure and a pattern of staffing, particularly at the Central Intelligence Agency, which has made it harder, rather than easier, to penetrate groups that are very, very dangerous and often very, very closed. This is a very hard problem. It's a hard problem for the British in Northern Ireland. It's a hard problem for the Israelis. It's a hard problem for anybody who's ever tried to deal with it.

And so I don't think we should view it as something we can wave a magic wand, but it's clear that we do not -- I'll just give you one example. And this is not an attack on the last administration, but when I was speaker, I -- we were up in the intelligence room, and one of the senior members of the administration told me, with enormous pride, that as part of their cost-cutting, they had dramatically reduced what they called the CIA's "overemphasis" on Afghanistan. This was about three months before they announced that bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan.

And to me it was a reminder of the point that Bill Kristol just made, and that is, we are a nation with worldwide interest. We need an intelligence capability that's worldwide. That requires, frankly, a substantial investment and a significant amount -- I mean, a small percentage of the $60 billion that Bill Kristol and I have now compromised on. But a significant percent of that, probably in the neighborhood of 3 (billion) to 5 billion, ought to be in intelligence.

We do not today have the capacities -- we don't have enough interpreters, we literally can't read much of the traffic, we don't have enough analysts, and we don't have enough deep agents who go out and spend the time to acquire the capabilities. And I just think this is an area that we absolutely have to look at.

And I want to come back to the fact -- it is a fact that for eight years we have said bin Laden is a major force against us, and at the end of eight years, which is twice the length of our participation in the Second World War -- at the end of the eight years, he held a press conference recently. Now this should say to us, if we were truly the leading power in the world, there is a zone here we're not doing very well, and it requires a new focus on it.

And I know those of you who served in the Intelligence Committee can in private comment to your colleagues about how much we need more resources, better structures, and a revision of the anti-intelligence legislation of the last quarter century.

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
8	North Carolina	570.00	11	51.82			387.00	24

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

Don't worry, rightcoast - the Democrat mainstream media will be able to ignore this entry, too - just as they ignored the Clarke precedent gambit you played last time.

I mean, it simply amazed me - Democrat Propagandaweek operative Spikey Isikoff was able to trump your Clarke ace with a two of nothings.

"Yes, the dead Franklin Roosevelt's chief of staff testified before Congress, BEFORE the Eisenhower precedent was set, and before the Clinton crimadministration used "executive privilege" to prevent Dickie Clarke, Condi's accuser, from testifying before Congress"

Think that about sums up Spikey's "two of nothings". ;-)

4 posted on 04/06/2004 9:59:39 AM PDT by an amused spectator (FR: Leaving the burning dog poop bag of Truth on the front door step of the liberal media since 1996)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.