A18


KK R


KLMNO FGHIJ


an independent newspaper EDITORIALS


The overgrowth of intelligence S It’s time to rationalize the vast expansion of secret government programs since 2001.


INCE SEPT. 11, 2001, the United States has increased its spending on intelli- gence by 250 percent and created or re- vamped 263 organizations. Yet the problems that gusher of money and bu-


reaucracy were meant to solve — such as the failure of existing intelligence organizations to share information or “connect the dots” about terrorism threats — have not been alleviated. Instead, as a series of articles in The Post this week documented, the vast expansion of agen- cies, programs and personnel — including tens of thousands of private contractors — has over- whelmed many of the policymakers and mili- tary commanders it was meant to serve. To their credit Defense Secretary Robert M.


Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta acknowl- edged in interviews with The Post that the spending binge since the Sept. 11 attacks is un- sustainable and that programs need to be scrubbed. James R. Clapper Jr., President Oba- ma’s nominee for director of national intelli-


Panic before


administration give in so quickly to a racial smear?


principle Why did the Obama


“A


DISSERVICE was done, an apology is owed.” These were the words White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used in explaining the rash and pat-


ently unjust dismissal of Shirley Sherrod, an Ag- riculture Department official based in Georgia. The unfortunate series of events that led to


Ms. Sherrod’s firing began Monday, when a con- servative Web site posted a video of a portion of a speech Ms. Sherrod delivered in March to a local NAACP group. Ms. Sherrod, who is African American, recounted her decision to make a less than robust effort to help a white farmer in dan- ger of losing his land to foreclosure. By nightfall, after the Obama administration became aware of the video, Ms. Sherrod found herself unem- ployed; an official from the Agriculture Depart- ment tracked her down by phone and ordered her to resign. Ms. Sherrod has said in numerous interviews during the past two days that she was told by the USDA official that the White House demanded her ouster; the White House denies this. After the dismissal, the NAACP followed quickly with a statement decrying Ms. Sherrod’s actions. Yet by Wednesday, Mr. Gibbs offered a heart- felt apology on behalf of the administration, and the NAACP had also issued a mea culpa. Agricul- ture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who says he made the firing decision, personally apologized to Ms. Sherrod on Wednesday and told her that the de- partment would have another job for her should she decide to return. Why the sudden reversal? It turns out that the episode with the white farmer occurred 24 years ago, long before Ms. Sherrod was employed by the Agriculture Department. Ms. Sherrod ulti- mately fought hard to help the farmer save his land — a fact confirmed by the farmer and his wife. Ms. Sherrod says in the video that her inter- action with the farmer triggered an epiphany about the importance of treating those in need fairly, no matter their color or ethnicity. Yet profound damage was done to Ms. Sherrod because of a series of irresponsible and thought- less acts, starting with the posting of a video snippet that took Ms. Sherrod’s words out of con- text. What made the story tantalizing to the me- dia outlets that seized on it was the fact that Ms. Sherrod had given her speech at a banquet for the local NAACP; just days before the video sur- faced, the NAACP had accused the Tea Party of harboring racist elements.


But most of the blame must fall on the Obama administration and Mr. Vilsack. It is unconscion- able that no one in the administration demand- ed to see the full video or text of the speech be- fore ordering Ms. Sherrod’s dismissal. Instead, officials rushed to respond to an Internet video of questionable authenticity to insulate them- selves from political fallout. Cowardice prevailed over principle; panic obscured common sense and decency. In the process, a woman who has worked all of her life to help victims of poverty and discrimination became the latest casualty of a cruel and mindless political game of gotcha.


gence (DNI), also seemed to recognize the problem. Writers Dana Priest and William M. Arkin quoted him as saying that “there’s only one entity in the entire universe that has vis- ibility on all [top secret programs] — that’s God.” Yet in his confirmation hearing before the


Senate intelligence committee on Tuesday, Mr. Clapper, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who has headed two Pentagon intelligence agencies, sounded curiously complacent about the complex he is taking on. Dismissing the Post’s detailed reporting as “sensationalism,” he defended the bloat, saying “one man’s dupli- cation is another man’s competitive analysis.” He said that the article’s description of a profli- gate expansion of private contractors “is in some ways a testimony to the ingenuity, in- novation and capability of the contractor base.” Having conceded that as a Defense Depart- ment intelligence satrap he joined in the turf battles that have tied the hands of the four


DNIs to serve since 2005, Mr. Clapper blithely asserted that he would have no problem su- pervising defense intelligence agencies, since “I’ve been there, done that and got the T-shirt.” Yet streamlining and rationalizing the “top


secret world” described by Ms. Priest and Mr. Arkin will require more than a business-as- usual approach. Mr. Clapper did say he would review the 51 federal organizations and mili- tary commands identified by The Post that now track the flow of money to terrorist networks, and he appeared to endorse a proposal by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) for an inspector general who could cover the entire intelligence community and help to identify duplication and waste. He also pointed out that Congress, which appropriates the more than $75 billion now spent on intelligence programs, ultimately has the ability to impose limits. If the new DNI does not work to identify and eliminate the overgrowth in the intelligence community, leg- islators will have to do just that.


TOM TOLES


THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR dletters@washpost.com


A window on Metro rudeness Regarding the July 19 Metro article “As ‘seat hogs’


take up space on Metro, civility is pushed aside”: To the fragile flowers riding Metro, simulta- neously being terribly delicate and at the same time furiously steaming because no aisle seat-holder in- vited them to sit, I commend three little words: “Ex- cuse me, please.” Then, after you wee timorous mousies have successfully gotten the aisle seat hold- er’s attention, proceed to slip past him or her into the window seat.


If I am in an aisle seat, I am not obligated to va-


cate my seat for you in favor of the window seat, un- less you are obviously disabled, elderly or hugely pregnant, in which case I would vacate my seat for you in any event and stand if need be. I am also not obligated, in the name of civility, to tear myself away from my reverie to scan the new passengers and see who might need me to invite them to sit next to me. Politeness requires me only to slide my legs over in response to an “excuse me” and not scowl at having my reverie interrupted. Saying “ex- cuse me” and slipping into a seat does not fling you into the ranks of the “aggressive.” Of course, those people who take up two seats on


a crowded train with shoes or packages are another story. But simply sitting in an aisle seat minding your own business cannot be an offense against civility.


MARLA BRIN, Alexandria  There is no excuse for those riders who place bags


or wet umbrellas on the next empty seat. However, there is a good reason for some riders who insist on taking the aisle seats and leaving the window seats empty. I do not know whether the Metro trains were de- signed in a slimmer time or in a slimmer country. But standing at 6 feet 3 inches, I simply do not fit in the window seat without placing my legs and knees diagonally and taking up both the window seat and the leg space for the aisle seat. I am sure there are some not-so-tall seat hogs on the aisles. But you can spot the tall ones easily and should feel free to ask them to stand up so you can move in. The long-term solution is for Metro to reexamine


the seat pitch. Even if Metro’s rail cars are not made in the U.S.A., they should be made for the U.S.A. ZHAO LI, Lake Ridge, Va.





While I commend The Post for its article on the rudeness of some Metro riders, I feel compelled to balance the picture because I see many random acts of kindness almost every day riding the bus in the District. In my experience, polite and considerate behav- ior on the part of bus drivers and riders is the norm. Recently, for instance, a bus driver saw a blind per- son on 16th Street who was frantically waving his cane trying to attract a bus but was standing in the wrong place. The driver stopped, got off the bus, found out which bus the gentleman wanted, guided him several yards to the correct stop and waved down the bus that he needed. She did not leave until this fellow was safely on his bus. Watching this kindness made my day, and I have sent in a com- mendation already. Let’s celebrate the positive, which is that the ma-


jority of drivers and riders, at least on the buses that I travel, are not only well mannered but also prac- tice random acts of kindness. JUDITH LISANSKY,Washington 


The seat-hog article was spot-on. Metro needs to become more aggressive with this situation. Per- haps it could have an area-wide contest to design a poster or ad highlighting this rude behavior. Maybe then the hogs would get the message. JOHNWALLIS, Washington 


Fill this vacancy, D.C. The board of elections is without a leader as big reforms approach.


T


HE RESIGNATION of the chairman of the District’s Board of Elections and Ethics brings into sharp relief the challenges fac- ing this critical agency. Not only must it


oversee one of the city’s most politically charged elections, but it must also do so while implement- ing far-reaching changes in election procedures. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and D.C. Council Chair- man Vincent C. Gray need to put aside their politi- cal differences and come up with a solution to en- sure the credibility of the electoral process. Errol Arthur announced this week that he will step down from the board on Aug. 2, just weeks before the Sept. 14 primary face-off between Mr. Fenty and Mr. Gray. The three-member board has been operating with only two members since Feb- ruary 2009, and Mr. Arthur’s open job, if left un- filled, would render the board unable to operate. Mr. Fenty twice nominated Mital Gandhi, a busi- ness executive backed by Republicans for the non- Democratic seat on the board, but the nomination stalled in the council. It was irresponsible of the council to recess for the summer without taking action on this matter. But we would urge Mr. Fenty, given his self- interest in the coming election, not to use his au- thority to make an emergency appointment. If he can’t persuade council members, who would have to come back into session, to confirm Mr. Gandhi, surely he can find other candidates in this capital


city with experience and expertise in election pro- cedures whom the council would be hard-pressed to turn down. On Tuesday, council members Da- vid A. Catania (I-At Large) and Mary M. Cheh (D- Ward 3) gave City Administrator Neil O. Albert such a list. The need for a functioning board becomes all the more important when viewed against the un- precedented election reforms taking effect this year, the result of legislation sponsored by Ms. Cheh. For the first time, D.C. voters will be able to vote early, to cast absentee ballots without an ex- cuse, to avail themselves of same-day registration and voting, and to cast citywide ballots outside of their home precinct. No other jurisdiction in the country has ever attempted to simultaneously in- stitute all these innovations, which require new equipment and new procedures. As Rokey W. Suleman II, the board’s executive


director, recently told the council, “to a person, there is not an election official that I am acquaint- ed with that doesn’t think that this agency faces one of the largest challenges ever faced by an elec- tions office . . . they are amazed that we are doing all of this at once and thankful it is not them.” While it would have been prudent to roll out these laudable changes on a different timetable, what’s most needed now is that the mayor and council ensure that the city is indeed ready for voters to go to the polls.


LOCAL OPINIONS 3Join the debate at washingtonpost.com/localopinions


A bust that belongs at Virginia’s D-Day memorial


In arguing that a bust of Joseph Stalin did not belong at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Va., Michael Gerson sounded — para- doxically — just like a Stalinist [“Dishonoring D-Day,” op-ed, July 16]. Wasn’t it the Soviet dic- tator who removed statues from memorials and erased names from the history books to en- force his own “true” interpretation of history? “Stalin and Hitler were moral equals in near-


ly every respect,” says Mr. Gerson. The kicker is the word “nearly.” That Stalin was a blood- thirsty tyrant responsible for the deaths of mil- lions of innocent people is no longer debatable. But one respect in which his morality far tran- scended that of Hitler was in his mobilization of the Soviet people to resist fascism and his command of the army that defeated Germany


in the most decisive and costly battle of World War II — the Battle of Stalingrad. Reading Mr. Gerson’s column, one would


never guess that of 17 million battle deaths in World War II, approximately 13 million were Russian (295,000 were American), or that the United States and Britain delayed launching the D-Day invasion until after the Red Army had destroyed Germany’s Sixth Army, turned the tide of the war and begun its historic march to Berlin. As monstrous as Stalin’s behavior was in


many respects, one can no more deny him cred- it for defeating the Nazis than one can deny credit to FDR or Winston Churchill. Leave the Bedford memorial alone. RICHARDRUBENSTEIN, Washington


ABCDE


EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001


BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer News pages:


MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor


RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor


SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor


Editorial and opinion pages: FRED HIATT


Deputy Editorial Page Editor


STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager KENNETH R. BABBY, Chief Revenue Officer/GM, Digital


Business and advertising: Vice Presidents


ROGER ANDELIN ......................................................................................... Technology BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE .................................................................................... At Large USHA CHAUDHARY..................................................................... Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ......................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ......................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ...................................................................................... At Large WENDY EVANS ............................................................................................. Advertising GREGG J. FERNANDES .................................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................... Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ......................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................... Development STEVE STUP ..................................................................................... Digital Advertising


1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000


The Washington Post Company: DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board


d Letters can be sent to letters@washpost.com.


Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.


Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL


The article about seat hogs left out one reason people may sit in the aisle seat and refuse to move to the window seat: their health. I get motion sickness terribly easily. It is less of a problem on buses, so I will often take only buses to get to a destination, even if it takes more than two hours. However, sometimes I can’t spare the time or the buses don’t run where I need to go, and I am stuck taking Metrorail. To minimize my motion sickness, I sit in a


forward-facing aisle seat. The side-to-side rocking of the train is less pronounced in the aisle seat, which can be the difference between arriving only mildly ill and being too overcome with nausea to climb the escalator out of the station. When the train begins filling up, I will often stand up from my aisle seat when we reach a station, offering access to the window seat if people want it. Few people seem comfortable taking that seat. I do everything I can to make it clear the window seat is available but still get dirty looks from people who would rather stand than sit in the seat I was “hogging.” While many “seat hogs” are simply rude, some of us are just trying to get to our destination without vomiting on anybody, which would, I think, be the ultimate rudeness.


CYNTHIA COLLIER, Washington The death penalty as deterrent?


I have one quibble with David Garland’s thought- ful commentary on the death penalty [“5 myths about the death penalty,” Outlook, July 18]. He wrote, “Proponents of the current system insist that it deters crime.” I’m not sure many proponents be- lieve that a system where fewer than one in 100 kill- ers is executed serves as a deterrent. More important, I don’t think most proponents of capital punishment care whether it is a deter- rent, only whether the one whose execution is un- der consideration ought to die. If one gets a warm and fuzzy feeling when a deserving miscreant is offed by the state, it doesn’t much matter whether others are somehow deterred by such an unlikely punishment; the issue is desert, not deterrence. Similarly, opponents of the death penalty may cite its lack of deterrence, but they oppose the punish- ment on ethical grounds — making the deterrence debate something of a red herring for all concerned.


PAUL H. BLACKMAN, Arlington


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74