WASHINGTON — The year was 1967. A young Kansan went to work for
Frank Carlson, the senior senator from that state. At the same
time, a young Wisconsinite, whose adopted state was Colorado, went
to work for Gordon Allott, that state’s senior senator. These two
young staffers, one around 30 and the other in his twenties, met
each other somewhere along the line.
The Kansan, after Senator Carlson retired, went to work as chief
of staff (they called them Administrative Assistants in those days)
for a member of the House from Kansas. That member, in due course,
retired. The still-fairly-young Kansan ran for the Republican
nomination for the seat and was subsequently elected to the House.
He stayed for quite some time and when Republicans took control of
the House after the 1994 elections, this not-as-young Kansan became
chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He immediately moved to
reform agriculture and helped to pass the most significant reform
bill in that arena in decades. It was truly landmark legislation.
That is why many were shocked when, upon the retirement of
three-term Senator Nancy Kassebaum, the House Ag Chairman declared
his run for the U.S. Senate. He was elected in 1996 and was
re-elected without meaningful opposition in 2002.
The Coloradoan? After his senator was defeated in the closest
Senate election in the state’s history, he worked for another
member of the Senate leadership. In due course he became the first
president of the Heritage Foundation and then founded the Free
Congress Foundation, and, of late, came to write this
commentary.
When Republicans re-took the Senate after the 2002 elections,
due to the term limits on committee chairmanships imposed after the
1994 elections, the newly re-elected senator took over one of the
most important committees in the Senate — considering the era in
which we live.
THE SENATOR, OF COURSE, is Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee. Roberts is remarkable. He is easily one of
the funniest men currently in the Senate. In an era when almost
every senator takes himself too seriously, Roberts is a master at
self-deprecating humor and can do a humorous dialogue better than
Dave Letterman. However, he can be serious when he needs to be.
Moreover, no other senator now serving could have accomplished what
Roberts did this past week.
Roberts slogged through a year of hard work to get a report on
intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Almost no one
would have predicted in this highly partisan year that Roberts
would have been able to get a unanimous vote on problems with our
intelligence system — the most sensitive of which being the
CIA.
True, Vice Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) wanted to go
further and examine how the Administration used that intelligence
to make the case to go to war. Roberts and his Republican
colleagues knew that in this highly charged, partisan atmosphere he
could not come up with a unanimous report on that question, so he
postponed final action until after the election. He made clear that
the committee needed to hear from witnesses, and that there are
only 20 legislative days left until the Senate adjourned.
Rockefeller argued that the Senate could work through the period
during which the Political Conventions are being held and during
the late Fall while the campaigns are in full swing as well.
Roberts correctly rejected that as ludicrous. Senators, he pointed
out, already have their travel plans for the period of the
Political Conventions and if you tried to bring them back, a riot
would ensue.
Likewise, to hold a committee session during October when the
election campaign was going at a fever pitch would hardly promote
non-partisanship. Even though the committee decided not to get into
that aspect of the issue, there is time after the election to probe
that matter. At that time, Pat Roberts will again be chairman if
the Republicans manage to hang on to control of the Senate. If the
Democrats prevail, he will be vice chairman and Jay Rockefeller
will be chairman.
Senator Roberts said that the President got consistently bad
information about the threat that Iraq posed. He is satisfied that
no one was pressured to give the Administration that intelligence.
Democrats said that the climate was such that agents were fearful
not to give the Administration what it wanted. Roberts said only
one agent said he felt pressured and that was about Cuba.
Rockefeller said the definition of pressure was too narrow.
IT IS AMAZING, CONSIDERING all of this bickering, that the
Intelligence Committee could come to a unanimous vote on anything.
Even Rockefeller paid tribute to Roberts for his dogged
persistence.
Roberts faced a blow-up when documents were stolen from the
Republicans. Many of his colleagues refused to continue the effort.
Roberts patiently put the committee, and its very partisan staff,
back together again. A number of his colleagues suggested at that
point that the effort to examine the intelligence system be
abandoned until after the election. Roberts would not hear of it
and the nation is the better for his efforts.
Roberts is a true-blue conservative. His voting record is hardly
distinguishable from his colleague Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). It
has been perhaps more than half a century since Kansas has had two
senators as conservative as Roberts and Brownback. Whereas
Brownback tends to keep a fairly high profile, Roberts, perhaps
reflecting his staff background, tends to keep a much lower
profile.
Nevertheless, the nation, in my view, owes Roberts a great debt
of gratitude. It is now clear that our intelligence system needs
real reform. The President welcomed the report, as well he should.
George Bush now has the opportunity to appoint a new director of
the CIA, which was the focus of the Senate report. He can make the
appointment with this report in mind. He can’t just appoint someone
who will tread water. He needs someone who will make sound public
policy from this report, subsequent reports and the forthcoming
recommendations.
