"Sweeping attacks, over generalization against our intelligence activities jeopardize vital functions necessary to our national security. Today's sensations must not be the prelude to tomorrow's Pearl Harbor. . . . Any reckless Congressional action to cripple our intelligence services in legitimate operations would be catastrophic." (Personal Papers Ford 1975, vol. 2, p. 492).

Nothing is really ever "new" when it comes to politics. In the late summer and early autumn of 1975, President Ford was in the first major political conflict with the congressional select committees on intelligence, and his mishandling of those committees (not taking the initiative away from them quickly and forcefully enough) has given us today's degenerated Senate hearings. Senators are now slobbering in the wings, as you read this, ready for their next gig of the goof balls. We can expect round after round of shameful exhibitions by self-styled leftist senatorial monarchs to the masses, but no performance will excel that of the King of Hypocrisy, Senator Edward Kennedy, the last flickering wick of the last decomposing candle that burns in the Camelot that never was, except in the bought and paid for molded minds of those with the lowest of self-esteem, who also happen to be those most easily seduced by mass hysteria and commercially designed political hypnotism.

With the socialists in the Senate gearing up for another Amos and Andy type hearing for the appointment of Air Force General Michael Hayden as the new head of the CIA, it's interesting to review some of the earlier workings of our intelligence services, starting with George Washington. One of the late directors of the intelligence community, William Casey, once remarked, "I claim that my first predecessor as Director of Central Intelligence was. . . . George Washington, who appointed himself." [Without a Senate confirmation hearing, kk] (from David Jackson, ed., "The Diaries of George Washington," vol 1, pp. 144-45) And, Ronald Reagan declared, "Washington began the proud tradition of American code-breaking." Many people believe that we won the Revolutionary War more quickly by Washington's use of successful covert operations. But, it was not to be until WW II that we had what is now called "the intelligence community," more on that a little later.

"First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," is how Henry Lee famously described George Washington. We remember being taught in grade school (God only knows what they say about George Washington in most schools these days?) that Washington could not tell a lie, and that as a leader of our country he was never shown to have done any "double-dealing" in politics. We learned that he was a hero who never used power, "but for the benefit of his country," and it is well known that he was offered the kingship of our country, and that he refused it. But, we never learned of Washington's lifelong fascination with espionage.

In 1753, when he was about twenty-two years old, Washington, then in the English army, was sent with an Indian scout on a mission from Virginia to the Ohio "wilderness." His mission was to spy on the French fort at Venanges (now named Franklin). Washington, playing the role of a French sympathizer, drank very little alcohol at dinner. He reported, "the French officers dos'd themselves pretty plentifully . . . the wine soon banished the restraint which at first appeared in the Conversation, & gave license to their Tongues to reveal their Sentiments more freely. They told me it was the absolute Design to take Possession of the Ohio, & by G__ they wou'd do it . . . " (from the "Diaries of George Washington," already noted) Years later (1775), with Washington's urging, the Continental Congress was quick to realize that they needed some spying on the British during our Revolutionary War. Among our first secret agents was Arthur Lee, a well connected American-born lawyer living and working in London. Arthur Lee received the following secret letter: "It would be agreeable to Congress 'to know the disposition of foreign powers toward us,' and we hope this object will engage your attention. We need not hint that great circumspection and impenetrable secrecy are necessary. The Congress rely on your zeal and ability to serve them, and will readily compensate you for whatever trouble and expense a compliance with their desire may occasion. We remit you for the present 200 [British, kk] pounds." (Courtesy CIA unclassified information : Francis Wharton, ed., "The Revolutionary War Diplomatic Correspondence . . . " U. S. Government Printing Office 1889, vol. 2, pp. 63-64) It was "military" intelligence that played a far more important part in the Revolutionary War than "foreign" intelligence. The Continental Congress had no formal intelligence service, so General Washington became his own spymaster. He personally gathered military information from his group of spies, analyzed their reports himself, and moved his troops away from stronger British troop locations, and fought only when he had a reasonable chance of winning. Historians tell us that Washington avoided more battles that he fought. That's probably how he was able to win a war against the world class British Army? Reluctantly, we must leave Washington, the great and noble man, and move on to modern Washington, the city of deceit and corruption and ignoble politicians. Those un-George Washington-like politicians are at their despicable worst, as we will see in the coming days, when they endanger the lives of those working in the intelligence communities of this great country. In fact, they endanger the whole nation by posturing and prostituting themselves primarily for the vote of the ignorant TV hypno-herd-hatchlings. Unavoidably, the essence of a democracy is the will of the pack, no matter how ill informed.

Let's go back now to President Ford's quotation at the beginning of this piece. He was talking about the House select committee on intelligence, whose chairman Otis Pike (the Nancy Pelosi-type member of the time), released a secret Middle East intelligence summary dated October 6, 1973. The summary included four words referring to SIGINT, or signal-intelligence. If you haven't "grown up" with these abbreviations of intelligence agencies and groups, more than 250 major ones, you'll need a reference sheet. [Signal intelligence is derived from interception and analysis of signals, including COMINT, meaning intelligence derived from intercepted communications; ELINT, or electronic intelligence; TELINT, which is telemetry intelligence, kk] In the Ford administration, both the CIA and NSA had formally asked the intelligence committees of both houses, never to reveal this information, especially phrases such as, "and greater communication security." Remember, for more than 20 years, SIGINT briefings to congress were kept strictly secret. But in 1975, leftists in the Democrat party were pro-Castro-Cuban, and against our covert actions in Angola (a whole new column?). Angola, a communist country, was armed and reinforced by both Russia and Cuba.

After congressman Pike played his card (the betrayal of the secret document on September 11, 1975) on behalf of the left, there was no stopping the Senate chairman (Senator Church) of the intelligence committee from getting in on such advantageous political "fresh meat." In the meantime, President Ford had ordered the house select committee to return all secret papers issued to it, effectively shutting it done. Senator Church then quickly told his staffers, "We must focus on (CIA) abuses. That's what this committee is for [how it is still used, kk]. . . . We need to begin hearings with something dramatic." (Loch K. Johnson, "A Season of Inquiry: The Senate Intelligence Investigation" (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985, pp. 72-77) (Colby, "Honorable Men," pp. 440-444).

There was no shortage of "drama" when the Church committee began hearings in late September 1975. Next week, we will describe how the Church committee emasculated the CIA, and how that contributed to 9/11.

Kenneth Kinchen is an independent writer with a background in international business and foreign service contracting.