You've hit the big time, and in such a good cause. Congratulations.

I'd have never thunk it two years ago ... overrun by all these rascals coming out of the woodwork.

I found your Post article intriguing. I share your concerns about the intel Chairmanship.

Having said that, I wanted to raise a real problem with respect to a major part of your analysis: politicians and clearances.

In your piece you write: "Were Hastings a regular Joe applying for a security clearance of the lowest kind for a job at the CIA or FBI, he'd be rapidly and roundly denied."

This is true, however, if we held all our politicians to the same standard that we hold the underlings, there would be a number of intriguing results on both sides of the aisles.

The standard for a security clearance when I served in the White House was any drug use--ever--had to be disclosed and was likely a complete bar to a high level clearance. The President has on a number of occasions, in discussing his drug use, said he could get a clearance to deflect questions of what substances he used and when. This is not the case for a White House clearance, which has a higher standard. Under the rules of when I served, the President, at best, could have gotten a classified clearance--and I have real doubts about even that.

Now consider the Vice President. The Vice President's rash of DWI's--not to mention the embarassing hunting incident--would bar him from any clearance, including the lowly classified.

Now, go through all the Congressional ranks and start nixing people who: fibbed or fudged once or twice on their taxes or their contribution forms; had large outstanding debts (name a first time office older who didn't come in with big campaign debts); had large credit card bills; had a few too many traffic accidents; and so on.

I'm not saying this to pick on Republicans, the same filter would catch lots of otherwise good people on the D side as well.

In short, in laying out the standard you provide, you might consider the results if it were applied across the board.

Anon,

I'd be perfectly happy if one standard were applied across the board. Let all those who'd like to be elected to Congress have to apply for a security clearance before beginning their campaigns. I bet we'd get a better Congress.

Intriguing. I applaud your consistency. I for one would be willing to go along with that--assuming it was applied with uniformity.

So, do you feel then that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are unfit for service because neither of them could be granted a security clearance under the rules that apply to the lowest ranking CIA functionary, let alone a WH official? If we agree can agree that Hastings should not be in, what then do you make of the President and Vice President, two gentlemen with access to the most precious of national security information, yet who couldn't get a White House? Should they not have been elected? Are they unfit?

Also, I would welcome your take on a related matter. During the whole Plame blow up, the President and Vice President insinuated that the leaks were authorized, hence the information was not classified any more. My recollection is that there is a formal process for declassification that requires the entity that seeks the declass to go back to the classifier and seek permission. My recollection is that this applies to any one, yes, including the President and Vice President. I'm of the view that if such a process was not undertaken, and as best as I can determine it was not, then the information could not have been authorized for release or declassified. If this is the case, while none of these people may be guilty of a crime, they all have mishandled classified information and should have security violations imposed. I know it seems odd to hit the President and/or Vice President with a security violation, however, if we are serious about protecting secrets and security, isn't that required? Isn't that necessary to send a message all down the ranks? What do you think?

Anon,

I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I do know tha the President and Vice President have statutory authority to declassify classified information. If you want more info, perhaps an attorney reader will weigh in. I'm not going to get dragged down the Plame-hole with you.

As to your other question, should for example, the Veep be disqualified from holding office cause he had some DWIs . . . Not sure. But I bet a reformed security clearance system that applied some standardized rules to both executives and the working ranks could address this problem among the others that we've identified.

The other side of the argument is that the people have the right to elect whomever they want, whether they are of the moral integrity necessary to hold a clearance or not. There's something to this of course. It would not behoove democracy well for some government agency to be able to decide in advance who is and is not eligible for election based on their security background. Ripe for abuse. So perhaps my initial suggestion isn't the best.

Nevertheless, I continue to contend that Alcee Hastings is a poor choice for Intelligence Committee Chairman. If you'd like to defend him, either his person, or in principle, be my guest. It's one thing to say that he shouldn't be subjected to the same background checks as everyone else because he's been elected. It's another to argue that he should be fine as the committee chairman. That's not an elected position.

Consider your complaints from another angle. The reason why DWIs are frowned upon is because they show that someone might have an alcohol problem, and therefore be manipulated. But if that person has had therapy or substance abuse counseling or whatever and no longer has such problems, should they then be suspect?

The same cannot be true for someone who has several million dollars of debt. Even if he goes through debt counseling, he still has debt.

Well, that's my $.02.