No Go: Tony Lake’s Position on Russian Spying, Alger Hiss Should Disqualify Him for Director of The C.I.A.

(Washington, D.C.): In the wake of
President Clinton’s reelection,
conventional wisdom has been that his
second-term Cabinet shuffle would
relocate National Security Advisor
Anthony Lake to the Central Intelligence
Agency. When asked about that possibility
in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the
Press” yesterday, Mr. Lake parried
the question with a non-committal
response saying only that “I
have been talking to the President about
the future.” It was
unmistakable though that he went out of
his way to elevate the stature of the
Director of Central Intelligence
position:

“The CIA in the post-Cold War
era and our other intelligence
agencies are performing a
tremendously valuable function for
American citizens. In a world after
the Cold War in which terrorism, in
which international crime, in which
environmental matters, in which the
politics among nations are more
complex — all of these issues are
tremendously important, if anything, more
complex than during the Cold
War. And I think our intelligence
agencies are more important than
ever.”

By process of elimination, though, it
looks as though Mr. Lake either goes to
the Agency or back to his Massachusetts
farm. The prospect that he might be
tapped to run all U.S. intelligence
became significantly more unappetizing in
light of other remarks he made in the
course of his interview yesterday.

On Russian Spying — Que
Sera, Sera

For example, host Tim Russert elicited
several unsettling comments from Mr. Lake
in connection with the Nicholson spy
affair — and what it suggests about
Russia’s post-Cold War conduct. After
declining to address directly the amount
of damage done by career CIA employee
Harold Nicholson during his years as a
mole for Russian intelligence, Mr. Lake
observed that “Anytime there’s a
spy…there’s a potential
difficulty.” The following exchange
was particularly noteworthy:

Mr. Russert: “When [the]
Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War was
proclaimed to be over, Americans
felt, ‘Well, things are going to
change now.’ But they haven’t. Why do
the Russians continue to spy at the
same levels they spied on us before
the Cold War [ended]?”

Mr. Lake: “Well, the
Cold War didn’t change human nature
and it didn’t change the nature of
international politics. href=”96-T118.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾
Spying is a very old profession. It’s
not the most pleasant of old
professions. And I think until human
nature changes — and that’s not
going to be soon — there will be
spying among governments. We have to
deal with it. That’s why we are
tightening up our counterintelligence
efforts.”

Mr. Russert: “But the
Russians haven’t altered their
behavior in terms of their spying on
us, have they?”

Mr. Lake: “They apparently
are spying on us to a degree
that we don’t like. We are
considering our responses to the
Nicholson affair right now.”

Setting Bad Precedents

Whether vigorous retaliation against
Moscow for the Nicholson affair is
forthcoming or not, the Russians
can only be pleased that the U.S.
National Security Advisor seems so
relaxed with regard to Kremlin efforts to
run hostile intelligence operations in
the United States. This is
especially true since, within the past
two weeks, the Clinton Administration —
presumably with the active involvement of
Mr. Lake as well as Strobe Talbott and
others — forced the Justice Department
and FBI to “cave-in to Russian
pressure” according to Department
officials cited by the Washington
Times. As one put it: “[The
release from federal detention of
admitted Soviet spy Vladimir Galkin] sets
a bad precedent for future spy
prosecutions. Now, every time we try a
[spy] case, the Russians will threaten to
arrest an American.”

The ‘Inconclusive’ Hiss
Case

Arguably, the most troubling glimpse
of Anthony Lake’s belief system with
regard to foreign espionage against the
United States — and the political will
to root out these insidious acts designed
to undermine this Nation’s liberty —
came in response to a question posed
about the recently deceased Alger Hiss.

Mr. Russert: “Let me ask you
a question. In our ‘Meet the Press’
Minute, we have Whittaker Chambers on
this program talking about Alger
Hiss. You’re a student of history. Do
you believe Alger Hiss was a
spy?”

Mr. Lake: “I’ve read a couple
of books that certainly offered a lot
of evidence that he may have been. I
don’t think it’s conclusive.”

In point of fact, since Allan
Weinstein’s book on the Hiss case, Perjury,
appeared in 1978 to favorable reviews
from virtually all quarters of expert
opinion, only a few in the media elite
and the hard-left Nation
magazine still contend that the evidence
against Hiss is inconclusive. Weinstein
concluded the original edition of the
book (an updated version will appear
early next year) with the observation
that: “There has yet to
emerge, from any source, a
coherent body of evidence that seriously
undermines the credibility of the
evidence against Mr. Hiss.”

Even such standard-bearers of the
media elite as ABC’s Peter Jennings were
obliged to “clarify” obsequious
obituaries for Hiss by noting that
statements to the effect that Russian
President Yeltsin had attested to Hiss’
innocence were erroneous. In a vehement
criticism of the Jennings’ obituary
reeking of sympathy for the
long-suffering Hiss, journalist Bob Novak
said on the 16 November edition of CNN’s
“Capital Gang”: “ABC’s
Peter Jennings said Boris Yeltsin claimed
KGB files cleared Hiss. Jennings,
apparently reading from a French News
Agency report.⁽²⁾
In fact, Yeltsin said no such thing.
Alger Hiss, a liar, spy, traitor.” href=”96-T118.html#N_3_”>⁽³⁾

The Bottom Line

In words that appear to sum up the
mindset of Anthony Lake — and many
others populating senior Clinton
Administration ranks — nationally
syndicated columnist George Will wrote:

“The insufferable agnosticism
expressed in many obituaries
concerning [Hiss’] guilt is proof of
the continuing queasiness of
‘anti-anti-communist’ thinkers
confronting the facts of communism
and its servants….There is no
hatred as corrupting as intellectual
hatred, so Hiss’ supporters always
responded to evidence by redoubling
their concoction of rococo reasons
for believing him framed by a
conspiracy so vast and proficient it
left no trace of itself. They
still require his innocence so they
can convict America of pathological
injustice. Never has so much
ingenuity been invested in so low a
cause, or such futility.”

Clearly, a man whose judgment appears
to be characterized at best by
indefensible naivete and at worst by such
insufferable agnosticism can not be
allowed to serve as the Nation’s top
intelligence official.

– 30 –

1. It should be
noted that the Clinton Administration has
generally taken the view that the Cold
War changed Russian behavior in most
respects. This conviction has animated
its arms control policies, foreign and
other financial assistance programs, and
other initiatives towards Moscow.

2. Interestingly,
the Russian general, Dimitri Volkogonov
— whose claim to have found nothing in
the KGB’s archives on Hiss lent some
credence to the Yeltsin quote — has
stated publicly that he did not review
the files on Hiss held by Soviet military
intelligence (the GRU), the organization
for which Hiss clearly worked. Volkogonov
was reportedly induced to make the
statement under pressure from a Hiss
family lawyer, who appealed to him to
give a dying old man some peace of mind.

3. As it happens,
Sunday’s “Meet the Press”
concluded with a reprise of that
program’s August 1948 interview with
Whittaker Chambers. It noted the recent
release of communications intercepts from
the National Security Agency’s
“Venona Project,” which
describes a highly placed State
Department official who was a Soviet
agent code-named Ales in terms
“congruent” with testimony
about Hiss.