GOP Likely to ‘Target’ Lake’s Bid for CIA Post

WASHINGTON — The confirmation of National Security Advisor Anthony Lake as CIA director appears to be in serious trouble in the Senate, where conservative Republicans are gearing up for lengthy and contentious hearings.

Some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are even hinting that President Clinton should consider withdrawing Lake’s name from consideration, comparing the outlook to the bitter 1991 hearings over Robert M. Gates’ nomination as director of central intelligence.

Republican lawmakers cite Lake’s involvement in Clinton’s decision to give a green light to covert Iranian arms shipments into Bosnia in 1994--and his decision not to inform Congress of the secret policy--as principal causes of concern among conservatives.

“Tony is in for a rougher time than anyone expected,” said one senior congressional source who requested anonymity. “I wouldn’t say the nomination is going down the tubes, at least not yet. But it is much more problematic than I would have thought just a few weeks ago.”

If confirmed, Lake would become Clinton’s third CIA director in four years. Clinton’s first director, R. James Woolsey, resigned in 1994, and his successor, John M. Deutch, is leaving the administration to return to academia.

Some Senate Republicans, congressional insiders say, have decided that Lake is one person on Clinton’s list of second-term foreign policy nominees who is vulnerable to attack. And they plan to take full advantage of the target of opportunity.

“Tony is the chosen target,” observed Gates, who knows firsthand what Lake is likely to experience.

Gates, who served under President Bush, characterized last week’s confirmation hearing for secretary of State-designate Madeleine Albright as a “love-in.” He predicted that Republicans will not attack William S. Cohen, the retiring Republican senator from Maine, who is Clinton’s choice for Defense secretary.

“So Lake is the only one on the whole foreign policy side that gives the Republicans a way to go after the president,” Gates said. “The idea that after four years they wouldn’t find some way to go after Clinton on foreign policy is naive.”

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the new chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has made it clear to the White House and to Lake that he has serious qualms about whether Lake should be confirmed.

Shelby met with Lake a week ago to outline his concerns, but he asked the nominee not to respond until he takes the stand at his confirmation hearings, according to Shelby aides.

“I think these hearings are going to be very interesting,” Shelby said in an interview.

Shelby, a former Democrat who is getting his first chance to chair a committee since switching to the Republican Party in 1994, seems to relish the prospect of a contentious confirmation process.

He has told reporters he believes that Lake’s nomination “has got some baggage” attached to it. If the confirmation bogs down in lengthy hearings, he has suggested, Clinton should consider cutting his losses and naming a replacement.

Lake is not granting interviews as he prepares for his confirmation hearings. But worried Democrats on the Intelligence Committee are already starting to mount a defense.

“I think it is very difficult to build a case against confirmation,” argued Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), the ranking Democrat on the committee. “Frankly, I don’t see this as another Gates hearing.”

Two issues lie at the heart of the controversy over Lake’s nomination. One is his involvement in the covert Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia in 1994 and the lack of congressional notification. A second, broader issue is the same one that confronted Gates in 1991: the politicization of U.S. intelligence operations.

Lake was directly involved in formulating the policy under which the Clinton administration secretly approved the creation of an Iranian arms pipeline through Croatia into Bosnia, despite a United Nations arms embargo that the United States had pledged to uphold.

The CIA, the Pentagon and Congress were all kept in the dark about the initiative. In fact, Clinton publicly opposed congressional efforts to lift the embargo so the United States and its allies could provide military aid to the Bosnians at the same time he was allowing the Iranian arms shipments.

Key Republican lawmakers have indicated they suspect that the Iranian arms initiative constituted an illegal covert action, and they remain troubled that the White House never told them about the policy.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the outgoing chairman of the intelligence panel, will vote against Lake’s nomination when it comes to the Senate floor because of the Iran-Bosnia matter, according to a source close to Specter.

Shelby, in turn, has been influenced by Specter’s views on the matter and says he has serious problems with Lake’s role in what he calls a “duplicitous” affair.

Several other conservative Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, including Sens. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), are said to share Shelby’s concerns.

Since Clinton announced the nomination, Lake has made a concerted effort to personally apologize to key lawmakers for the administration’s failure to inform Congress of the Bosnian arms initiative.

But Shelby remains unimpressed. “It’s one thing to apologize when you are waiting to be confirmed by the Senate. It’s another to tell Congress what’s happening at the time that it is happening.”

Lake’s involvement in the policy raises red flags because many lawmakers worry that the CIA is prone to backsliding on its responsibility to keep Congress informed of U.S. espionage activities.

“I think Tony is going to have to do a public mea culpa on Iran-Bosnia,” Gates said. “He has got to assure Congress that it will never happen again, and that if something like that does happen, he will resign.”

Some lawmakers and outside analysts wonder whether Lake will be able to provide impartial and unbiased intelligence to the president, particularly if information obtained by the CIA conflicts with policies Lake helped formulate as national security advisor.

Gates’ 1991 confirmation was nearly derailed by similar complaints. Gates, a career CIA analyst and the agency’s former deputy director, was nominated for the directorship just as the Soviet Union was breaking apart. He came under fire for allegedly downplaying intelligence in the 1980s that showed the Soviet Union did not pose as serious a threat to the United States, as had been believed. His critics claimed he had done so to support the Reagan administration’s massive military buildup.

Similarly, Lake is likely to be grilled on whether he would feel free to tell Clinton--and Congress--that America’s spies have information showing the administration is on the wrong track in hot spots like Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda or Korea.

“Politicization is a real issue,” said a former senior administration official familiar with Lake. “Tony knows the president and knows how to talk to him. But [as CIA director] you have to be able to say things that contradict administration policy, both in public testimony and in private meetings.”

Kerrey said he thinks the Republicans ultimately will decide not to block Lake because of his past role at the White House. “I don’t think Republicans want to set that precedent,” he said.

In addition to the Democrats on the panel, Lake can probably count on the support of moderate Republicans, including Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who has made it clear he will vote for Lake. That may be enough to guarantee Lake’s confirmation.

But with his hearings not scheduled to start until Feb. 11, opposition may continue to build among conservative Republicans.

Lake’s failure in 1993 to sell stocks in four energy companies until more than a year after he was told to do so by the White House counsel’s office has also raised questions. Lake has said the delay was inadvertent, but the matter is under review by Justice Department public integrity officials.