>> HAVILAND SMITH IS A RETIRED C.I.A.

STATION CHIEF AND SOVIET SPECIALIST WHO SERVED IN EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST DURING THE COLD WAR AND CAME BACK TO WASHINGTON TO HEAD UP THE COUNTERTERRORISM STAFF.

HE IS NOW A COMMENTATOR ON FOREIGN POLICY AND MY GUEST, >> HAVILAND SMITH WAS EDUCATED AT EXETER AND DARTMOUTH, SERVED IN THE ARMY SECURITY AGENCY AS A RUSSIAN LANGUAGE INTERCEPT OPERATOR AND EARNED A MASTER'S IN RUSSIAN STUDIES AT LONDON UNIVERSITY.

SMITH JOINED THE C.I.A.

IN THE HEAT OF THE COLD WAR IN 1955, SERVING IN PRAGUE, BERLIN, BEIRUT, TEHRAN, AND WASHINGTON OVER A 25-YEAR CAREER, PRINCIPALLY RECRUITING AND HANDLING AGENTS OR MANAGING THAT PROCESS AS STATION CHIEF.

HE WAS ALSO THE C.I.A.

's CHIEF OF COUNTERTERRORISM FOR THREE YEARS AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.

SMITH RETIRED TO VERMONT WITH IS WIFE IN 1980.

HE NOW WRITES FREQUENTLY FOR THE "TIMES ARGUS" AND NUMEROUS NATIONAL PUBLICATIONS AND LECTURES WIDELY ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

IT IS GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE.

>> PLEASURE.

>> FASCINATING LIFE.

BEFORE WE MOVE INTO FOREIGN POLICIES AND ADVENTURES.

WHY DID YOU CHOSE TO RETIRE TO VERMONT?

WAS IT FISHING?

>> FISHING AND HUNTING AND THE FACT I NEVER HAD A HOME.

I REALLY COULDN'T IDENTIFY WITH A PLACE I LIVED.

I LIVED ALL OVER THE WORLD AND THE COUNTRY.

I HAD A FARM HERE IN THE EARLY '60s AND DECIDED I WOULD RETIRE.

>> YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF FISH AND WILDLIFE.

WHY DID YOU CHOSE TO GET INTO RUSSIAN STUDIES AS A YOUNG MAN?

YOU WERE BROUGHT NEWSPAPER MANHATTEN, DID YOU THINK YOU WERE GOING TO BE SPY?

>> I THINK IT WAS A GROWING AWARENESS OF A SELF--SOVIET THREAT WHETHER IT WAS A REALITY OR NOT.

I CAME FROM A FAMILY IN A VALUED PUBLIC SERVICE.

I KNEW IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT, I WOULD TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER.

THE TWO CAME TOGETHER AND THEY CAME TOGETHER WHEN I WAS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL IN LONDON.

WHEN I GOT RECRUITED AS A SORT OF A FIELD AGENT BY THE C.I.A.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING I COULD DO AND SATISFY EVERYTHING FOR ME.

>> YOU WORKED IN SOME VERY HOT PLACES IN IRON CURTAIN AND PRAG AND BERLIN AND SIX-DAY WAR AND IRAN BEFORE YOU RETURNED TO WASHINGTON.

BROADLY THIS IS A HUGE QUESTION, WHAT WAS YOUR MISSION WHEN YOU WERE ABROAD?

WHAT WAS THE AGENCY TRYING TO DO?

FIRST OF ALL, I WAS KNOWN AS A CASE OFFICER.

CASE OFFICERS RECRUIT AND HANDLE AGENTS.

MY JOB BECAUSE I CAME FROM THE SOVIET EAST EUROPEAN SIDE OF THE AGENCIES WAS TO RECRUIT AND HANDLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCING INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IN THE SOVIET UNION AND EAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

>> IT SEEMS DURING THAT TIME THE C.I.A.

'S FOCUS WAS POLITICAL MANEUVERING AND ROO ROO--REGIME CHANGE.

>> I HAD THE LUXURY OF BEING ON ESPIONAGE AND HUMAN.

WE WERE NOT TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE SOVIET UNION OR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

THERE WAS A NEED IN THE POLICY LEVEL IN WASHINGTON FOR INTELLIGENCE ON THE CAPABILITIES AND INTENTIONS OF THE SOVIET UNION.

WE WERE LEFT ALONE.

I WAS DOING THE SAME JOB ALL OVER THE WORLD.

>> RIGHT IN LEBANON OR IRAN YOU ARE LOOKING AT RUSSIANS?

>> ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ALL I DID.

>> YOU WORKED OUT OF THE EMBASSY.

WOULD THEY CALL YOU THE C.I.A.

STATION CHIEF OR SOMETHING ELSE?

>> I WAS ALWAYS UNDERCOVER AS A SECOND SECRETARY OR CONSULT.

>> YOUR FAMILY, YOU WERE GROWING A FAMILY AT THIS TIME.

DID THEY KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING?

MY WIFE KNEW WHAT I WAS DOING.

MY CHILDREN DIDN'T UNTIL I GOT TO THE POINT WHERE I THOUGHT THEY WERE OLD ENOUGH NO HANDLE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

IT WAS SEXY.

I DIDN'T WANT MY NINE-YEAR-OLD TO ROLL ALL OVER BERLIN TELLING THEM I WORKED FOR THE C.I.A.

>> MAYBE NOT A GOOD IDEA.

HOW DID YOU RECRUIT AGENTS?

>> I HAVE OFTEN LIKENED IT TO A PROCESS OF IS S EDUCTION.

FIRST YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AFTER.

WE WERE NOT TARGETING PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT INTELLIGENCE FOR US.

ONCE HAVING IDENTIFY THEM, THEN THE ISSUE WAS, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT PERSON THAT I CAN IDENTIFY WITH?

IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT ME THAT HE CAN IDENTIFY WITH?

>> FISHING.

>> FISHING.

I HAD ONE CASE IN BEIRUT WHERE THE WHOLE THING WAS BUILT AROUND FISHING.

>> WOW.

SO IT WAS REALLY--SO YOU WOULD ENTICE THESE PEOPLE AND THEN OVER TIME-- >> I DON'T WANT YOU TO MISUNDERSTAND THIS.

NO ONE WENT OUT AND RECRUITED ANYONE.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS YOU TOOK PART IN THE DYNAMIC IN WHICH THE PERSON IN WHOM YOU WERE INTERESTED TEMPLY CONCLUDED IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM OR HER TO COOPERATE WITH YOU.

YOU WERE THERE AT THE MOMENT OF TRUTH.

THE FACT THAT YOU TALKED THEM INTO DOING SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO WAS NOT PART OF IT.

>> DID YOU EVER LOSE SOMEONE?

>> YES.

>> WHAT IS BRUSH CONTACT.

I READ IT WAS CREDITED TO YOU IN WISEMAN'S BOOK "SECRET TO LIVE."

WHAT IS THIS?

>> WHEN I WAS IN PRAGUE, I WAS A JUNIOR OFFICER.

I WAS UNFETTERED WITH THE AGENCY OR PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE OF HOW WE HAD DONE WORK INSIDE THAT KIND OF ENVIRONMENT BEFORE.

TWO THINGS, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR TO ME AFTER FIRST SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS IN PRAGUE THAT I WAS EITHER ALWAYS GOING TO BE UNDER SURVEY HELPS BY THE THE--SURVEILLANCE BY THE LOCAL SECURITY SERVICE AND NO IT OR BE UNDER SURVEILLANCE AND NOT NO IT.

THEREFOR WAS RELUCTANT TO UNDERTAKE ANY INTEL GENERALS ACTIVITY THAT COULD BE OBSERVED.

THAT THEN BECAME MY QUEST.

HOW DO YOU FIND TECHNIQUES WHERE YOU CAN CONDUCT INTELLIGENCE OR ESPIONAGE UNDER SURVEILLANCE?

THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAME UP WITH.

AND IN EFFECT WHAT WE DID WAS, WE MANEUVERED IN A WAY THAT STRUNG OUR SURVEILLANCE TEAM OUT BEHIND US BY TURNING CORNERS.

IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE.

IF YOU KNOW HOW SURVEILLANCE WORKS, YOU KNOW YOU CAN MANIPULATE IT.

YOU MANIPULATE THE SURVEY SURVEY--SURVEILLANCE TO TURN THE CORNER AND THEN YOU TURN THE CORNER AND NO ONE IS BEHIND YOU.

>> FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

>> I CALLED IT THE GAP.

ALL THE WORK WAS DONE IN THE GAP.

IF YOU SELECTED YOUR SIGHTS PROPERLY, YOU COULD HAND A PACKAGE TO AN AGENT OR RECEIVE ONE FROM THE AGENT WHEN YOU TURNED THE CORNER AND BY THE TIME THE FIRST SURVEY LANT TURNED THE CORNER, YOU WERE NOT THERE.

IT WORKED.

WE NEVER LOST AN AGENT DOING THAT.

>> THE UNITED STATES HAS A LONG AND COMPLICATED HISTORY WITH IRAN WHERE YOU YOU WERE STATIOND FOR A WHILE.

YOU WERE STATIONED THERE BEFORE THE I AYATOLLAH WHO WAS A WE WERE SHAH WE PROBABLY HELP SEAT.

WHAT WAS PERCEIVED THREAT THEN AND WHAT WAYS DO YOU CONSIDER IRAN A THREAT NOW SOMETHING VERY MUCH TALKED ABOUT?

>> I SEE IRAN--I SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRAN AND THE UNITED STATES AS ONE OF THE GREATEST TRAGEDIES OF THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD OR THE COLD WAR EVEN POST-WAR WORLD II PERIOD.

WE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GREAT DEAL IN COMMON AND FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS FAR TOO NUMEROUS TO GO INTO, EACH SIDE HAS DONE THE WRONG THINGS.

I SPEAK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TRAVEL TO IRAN BECAUSE THEY ARE MY FRIENDS.

THEY SAY WITHOUT EXCEPTION HOW WARMLY THEY ARE RECEIVED AND HOW IRANIANS THEMSELVES LOOK TO US IN MANY RESPECTS FOR SOME SORT OF IMAGE OF THE WAY THE WORLD MIGHT BE FOR THEM.

THE FACT IS THAT IN MY TIME AND THEY'RE ALL STILL THERE, I KNEW A RAFT OF YOUNG IRANIANS WHO WERE WESTERN EDUCATED, COULD SPEAK IN WESTERN EUROPE AND TAKEN WITH THE DEMOCRACIES OF THE WEST.

THEY ARE STILL THERE AND VERY VOCAL.

THERE'S A CURIOUS DICHOTOMY OF A VERY REPRESSIVE REGIME DEALING WITH A RATHER DISTANT POPULATION.

I THINK THE ONLY THAT MOTIVATES THE REGIME TO STAY IN POWER.

AS LONG AS THE POWER DOESN'T FEEL THREATENED THEY FEEL OKAY.

>> WE SEEM TO BE THREATENING THEM IN AN EXTERNAL WAY.

>> IT'S A SAD THING, SAD THING.

>> WHAT DO WITH--WE NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT PART OF THE WORLD.

>> I THINK THE MOST BASIC MISUNDERSTANDING IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS HAVE A BELIEF SYSTEM TO WHICH THEY BELIEVE AND ADHERE.

IF YOU READ THE QURAN, AMERICANS SHOULD FIND A COPY AND READ IT OR AT VERY LEAST READ A SUMMARY OF IT.

YOU WILL FIND THAT THOR--THAT IT TELLS WOMEN HOW TO FEED CHILDREN AND STRUCTURES OF LIFE.

THEY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH.

THAT THERE ARE MUSLIMS WHO ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

SOME OF THEM ARE UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE ACCEPTS IT'S TOO PERVASIVE.

SOME ARE UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE THEY SEE THE SECULARRATION OF ISLAM.

I THINK THE NOTION THAT WE CAN SOMEHOW MARCH INTO A MIDDLE EAST AND TURN IT INTO A DEMOCRACY IS ABSURD.

ON THE FACE OF IT, IT IS ABSURD.

>> NOT INTERESTED IN WHERE THEY WANT TO GO?

>> IT'S COUNTER PRODUCTIVE BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT WE IN FEWER--INFURATE THEM.

I THINK STAYING IN TOUCH WITH THE MUSLIM MODERATES, THEY ARE OUR HOPE.

WHEN WE WALTZ AROUND TELLING THEM HOW GOOD WE ARE AND HOW BAD THEY ARE, WE ARE NOT GOING TOWARDS OUR GOALS.

>> JUMPING BACK TO THE PIECE OF WHAT AMERICA WAS TRYING TO DO, YOUR CAREER WAS ABOUT TAKING DOWN THE SOVIET EMPIRE OR THE THREAT.

WHAT DO YOU CREDIT WITH ITS DEMIZE?

>> I NEVER BELIEVED IT WOULD HAPPEN.

I REMEMBER THE NIGHT THE WALL CAME DOWN.

WE WERE ON THE FARM IN BROOKFIELD.

I STOOD IN FRONT OF THE TELEVISION WITH TEARS.

IT WAS A VERY EMOTIONAL MOMENT FOR ME.

HAVING SAID THAT, IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T COME DOWN BECAUSE OF US.

IT CAME DOWN BECAUSE OF INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS OF THE SYSTEM AS IT WAS PRACTICED THERE.

THEY WERE FACED WITH A TERRIBLE PROBLEM.

BACK IN THE EARLY '60s THEY RECOGNIZED IT.

THERE WAS A MOVEMENT SANCTIONED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES TO A CENTRALLY CONTROLLED ECONOMY.

THEY CAME UP WITH WHAT I THOUGHT WAS BEST TERM SOCIALIST MARKET ECONOMY.

THEY WERE FACED WITH A VERY REAL CHOICE.

THEY COULD DECENTRALIZE THE ECONOMY OR THEY COULD MAINTAIN CENTRAL CONTROL.

THEY WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL CONTROL OF THE COUNTRY, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DECENTRALIZE ECONOMICALLY.

I THINK THAT WAS A MAJOR FACTOR TO THE ECONOMY.

>> IS RUSSIA A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES?

>> NO.

>> WHAT SHOULD OUR REACTIONS BE TO THE EVENTS IN GEORGIA?

>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN GEORGIA.

THE POPULAR NOTION THAT THE SOVIETS INVADED GEORGIA IS DISPUTED BY A LOT OF VERY POWERFUL INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE OPEN PRESS.

A FORMER, OR A SOVIET AMBASSADOR IN TESTIFYING BEFORE HIS OWN DUEMA.

HE WAS A GEORGIA AMBASSADOR TESTIFYING SAID THAT THE GEORGIANS INITIATED THE WAR.

SO IT'S NOT ALL THAT CLEAR.

THE FACT IS THAT THE SOVIET OF THE RUSSIANS ARE SENSITIVE HAS THEY HAVE SINCE WELL BEFORE THE SOVIET UNION TO ISSUES OF HEDGE MONY.

THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR COUNTRY.

>> NATO EXPANSIONISM.

>> EXACTLY.

IF I COULD FIND A GEOPOLITICAL PLACE FOR EXPANSIONISM OTHER THAN STICKING A NEEDLE IN THE EYE, I DON'T FIND IT.

>> YOU WERE CHIEF THE C.I.A.

STAFF FOR THREE YEARS.

THIS IS GOING BACK 30 YEARS AGO.

EVERYBODY IS OBSESSED ABOUT TERRORISM NOW.

WHAT WAS THE FOCUS?

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR SUCCESS IN COUNTERTERRORISM NOW?

>> FIRST OF ALL, IT ALL REALLY HINGES AROUND YOUR OVERALL OR YOUR NATIONAL FOREIGN POLICY GOALS AND PLANS.

I SEE THE PAST EIGHT YEARS AS HAVING BEEN REALLY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO OUR NEEDS IN DEALING WITH THIS TERRORISM.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE--WE HAVE RUN SOME VERY STRONG OPERATIONS IN EFFECT KILLING A LARGE NUMBER OF THE LEADERSHIP OF AL-QAEDA.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE NOT DONE OR WHAT WE HAVE DONE ON THE OTHER SIDE, IS WE HAVE ALIENATED SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WITH OUR POLICIES AND WHAT THEY VIEW AS OUR ARROGANCE, IT'S HARD TO SAY THERE'S AN EVEN TRADE-OFF BETWEEN THE TWO.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS FORCED AL-QAEDA INTO A FRANCHISE OPERATION.

>> LIKE McDONALD'S.

>> YEAH, THE McDONALD'S-ATION OF TERRORISM.

AND YOU GET PEOPLE LIKE MUMBAI WHO ALLEGED TO BE AN AL-QAEDA AFFILIATE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT IN LINE OF CONTROL FROM AL-QAEDA HEADQUARTERS.

IN FACT I THINK AL-QAEDA HEADQUARTERS HAS LITTLE CONTROL IN ANY TERRORISM ALL OVER THE WORLD OR SPONSORED BY MUSLIMS.

>> AND HARD TO MONITOR.

YOU SIGNED A SET OF PRINCIPLES WITH 15 OTHER INTERROGATEORS ABOUT TORTURE.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE ABOUT TORTURE BEEN AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN INTELLIGENCE GATHERING?

>> I WAS ASKED TO COME TO A CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON IN JUNE RUN BY HUMANS RIGHTS FIRST, YEAH, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST.

AND THE ISSUE THERE WAS JUST THAT.

THE EFFICACY OF TORTURE.

WHEN I WAS ASKED, I WROTE BACK AND SAID I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN INTERROGATION OR TORTURE.

I SAID I DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN ADD TO THIS.

THEY SAID WE WANT YOUR OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE AS AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AS PART OF THAT CONFERENCE.

I WENT.

THERE WERE 18-20 PEOPLE.

OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE THERE, THERE WERE TWO OF US FROM THE C.I.A.

BOTH RETIRED AND THERE WERE TWO GENERALS.

ONE LIEUTENANT GENERAL WHO WAS CHIEF OF D. I. A. AND ANOTHER BRIGADEER GENERAL.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN PRACTICAL INTERROGATION OR GOD FORBID TORTURE.

THE OTHERS WERE HANDS-ON INTERROGATEORS.

THERE WAS A LARGE NUMBER OF MILITARY THAT WORKED IN VIETNAM, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, PANAMA, ANYPLACE WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN CONFLICT.

>> YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK.

>> NOT REALLY, NO.

MY LIFE WAS SPENT SITTING DOWN WITH PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO TELL ME A STORY.

>> RIGHT, SURE.

>> INTERROGATION IS THE PROCESS OF GETTING SOMEONE TO TELL YOU THE STORY WHO DOESN'T REALLY WANT TO TELL YOU.

ANYWAY THE CONSENSUS AND THE OTHER BATCH OF THE CONFERENCE ROLE OF THE FORMER C.I.A.

OFFICERS AND ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT EXCEPTION THEY SAID THESE ARE THE PRACTITIONORS, TERRORISM TORTURE IS TOTALLY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

YOU DEFEAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE WHEN YOU TORTURE SOMEBODY.

FOR ME IT WAS A TREMENDOUS EXPERIENCE.

I WAS FASCINATED ABOUT THAT ALL THESE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT AGREED ON SOMETHING AS CONTROVERSIAL AS THAT OF THE.

>> VERY POWERFUL.

>> VERY POWERFUL.

>> JUST BEFORE YOUR RETIREMENT YOU WORKED AS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FOR THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE C.I.A.

FRIEND CARLUTTY AND WAS A MEMBER OF DONALD RUMSFELD.

>> FRANK WAS NOT A NEOCONSERVATIVE.

HE WAS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN BUT NOT A NEOCONSERVATIVE.

>> I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK MUCH OF THE NEOCONS NOW.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO GO INTO NEOCONS.

TO SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THE NEOCONS ARE PART OF THE ECONOMY.

>> CERTAINLY YOU WERE THERE WITH A SEED OF MUCH OF THIS AND YOUR COLUMNS ARE NOW VERY MUCH ON A VERY DIFFERENT SIDE.

THEY ARE VERY CRITICAL OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

>> YES.

>> DOES THE AGENCY VET YOUR WORK?

>> THEY ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW--NOT ALLOWED, IT IS MANDATORY UNDER THE LAW THAT I SUBMIT TO THEM FOR PREPUBLICATION REVIEW ANYTHING I WRITE ON ANY SUBJECT THAT ABOUT WHICH I MIGHT HAVE LEARNED ANYTHING DURING MY EMPLOYMENT.

BASICALLY THAT MEANS I SUBMIT ON ANYTHING I WRITE ON INTELLIGENCE ISSUES, INTERROGATION, TORTURE, THE F.B.I.

AND COUNTERTERRORISM PROGRAM OF WHICH I'M NOT A GREAT FAN.

WE DIDN'T GET TO THAT.

THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED.

THEY HAVE NEVER--I HAVE SUBMITTED SOME 90-ODD PIECES TO THEM AND THEY HAVE CHANGED THREE WORDS.

AND I CAN'T TELL WHAT THREE.

>> WHAT THEY WERE.

>> OR I'LL BE IN TROUBLE.

>> I SUBMIT EVERYTHING TO THEM.

>> THEY TURN IT AROUND FAIRLY QUICKLY.

>> IT'S INTERESTING.

MY PERCEPTION IS THE POLITICAL SENSITIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE SUBJECT HAS SOME BEARING ON HOW QUICKLY THEY HANDLE IT.

IF IT'S SORT OF NOT CONTROVERSIAL, I GET A RESPONSE IN 24 HOURS.

ON THE OTHER HAND I HAD THEM HOLDUP PIECES ONE I SUBMITTED TO THE "WASHINGTON POST" THEY HELD IT ALMOST THREE WEEKS.

THREE WEEKS AND AN OP-ED PIECE IS DEAD.

>> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS POLITICIZED THE C.I.A.

THERE HAVE BEEN FIRINGS AND, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLE SHOWING OF THE VALERIE PLAME THING.

HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY OR MORE SO UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH?

HOW POLITICAL OR NON-POLITICAL IS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY?

>> WELL, LOOK THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES IS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

OUR BOSS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE'RE NOT IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

IN THAT RESPECT, IF AN ORDER IS LEGAL, LAWFUL, WE FOLLOW IT.

MY CONCERN ABOUT THE PAST EIGHT YEARS--WELL, ACTUALLY PAST SIX YEARS, HAS BEEN MORE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR INTRUSION INTO THE INTELLIGENCE PRODUCTION PROCESS.

THEIR INCLINATION TO WANT TO CHANGE ANALYSIS COMING FORWARD FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE DOCUMENTED VISITS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT TO THE C.I.A.

AND STORIES TO THE EFFECT THAT HE BROWBEAT THE ANALYSTS WHO COME AROUND TO POINTS OF VIEW THAT WERE MORE PALATABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

THE FUNCTION OF HIS INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION IS ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE.

IT IS TO SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER.

IF YOU CAN'T SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER, THEN YOU'RE IF THE FULFILLING YOUR OBLIGATION.

>> HAS IT WEAKENED THE AGENCY?

>> I THINK SO.

>> ARE WE LESS SAFE?

>> HEI BELIEVE SO.

>> ISN'T THE TERRORISM LEFT TO THE F.B.I.

NOW.

>> THE F.B.I.

IS AN INTERNAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION.

THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THE F.B.I.

HAVING PRIMACY IN COUNTERTERRORISM INSIDE THIS COUNTRY IS THAT THEY ARE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

THE MENTALITY OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF AN INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION.

THE BRITISH HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS.

THEY HAVE MI6 DOING THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE WORK.

THERE OTHER WORK IS DONE BY M I-5 WITHOUT POLICE POWERS.

NOW TO ME THE THOUGHT THAT YOU HAVE YOUR PRIMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHICH HAS AN ARREST-THEM -AND- -JAIL-THEM MENTALITY.

>> HAVILAND, I HAVE TAKEN YOU TO THE END.

HOPEFULLY PEOPLE CAN ENJOY MORE ON OUR WEBSITE VPT.ORG.

I'LL FRAN STODDARD.

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

Captioning Performed By LNS Captioning www.LNScaptioning.com