Democratic Candidate Was Rumsfeld’s “Eyes and Ears”

By fitsnews • on May 29, 2008
Comment Print

CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE NOW SEEKS TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM INTELLIGENCE ROLE IN BUSH ADMINISTRATION

FITSNews – May 29, 2008 – A Democrat running for U.S. Congress in South Carolina served as the Bush administration’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight – a high-profile position that pre-dated the September 11 terrorist attacks and also covered the controversial build-up to the War in Iraq.

George “Blaine” Lotz, who is running in the Democratic primary for South Carolina’s Second Congressional District, held his post for the duration of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s tenure – although Lotz is now telling Democrats in South Carolina that he “never met” Rumsfeld and had to “salute smartly and press on” regarding the controversial intelligence which served as the basis for the U.S.-led military action in Iraq.

Details of Lotz’s high-profile Pentagon position could prove extremely damaging to his candidacy, however, as Democrats – and for that matter, former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan – have been sharply critical of the administration’s thin justification for the Iraq War.

According to documents obtained exclusively by FITSNews, Lotz began working at the Pentagon after retiring from the Air Force in 1992. He joined the Department’s Senior Executive Service four years later and in 1998 was appointed Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Oversight.

Lotz was in this high-ranking intelligence position in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, in which America’s intelligence community was widely believed to have been “caught napping” by al Queda.

As Assistant Secretary, Lotz described himself as Rumsfeld’s “eyes and ears” on intelligence issues, and also referred to himself as “the policeman, if you will, for the Defense Department.”

In 2002, he described his office as being responsible for “the independent oversight of all intelligence, counterintelligence, and intelligence-related activities in the Department of Defense.”

In reporting directly to Rumsfeld, Lotz also provided President Bush’s Intelligence Oversight Board with “quarterly reports based on field inspections of intelligence components and reviews of allegations of improper activities.”

Many of these “improper activities” stemmed from the implementation of a so-called “Total Information Awareness” program at the Defense Department, a post-September 11 effort that has been widely criticized as one of the most far-reaching domestic snooping efforts in American history.

In fact, a November 2002 column written by William Safire described the program as follows:

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ”a virtual, centralized grand database.” To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a ”Total Information Awareness” about every U.S. citizen.

As a result of these and other criticisms, Lotz conducted a December 2002 review of the program which concluded that no “rights of United States persons” had been violated in its implementation.

Lotz does list his Pentagon service briefly on his website biography, although there is no mention of Rumsfeld.

Lotz also lists ending the War in Iraq as his number one priority, and criticizes Republican incumbent Joe Wilson for being a “rubber stamp” for the Bush Administration.

Comments

By Mattheus Mei on May 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

As Assistant Secretary, Lotz described himself as Rumsfeld’s “eyes and ears” on intelligence issues, and also referred to himself as “the policeman, if you will, for the Defense Department.”

In 2002, he described his office as being responsible for “the independent oversight of all intelligence, counterintelligence, and intelligence-related activities in the Department of Defense.”

Will, where are your sources for these juicy juicy morsels? This is all very intriguing. And it looks like the TIA program was part of DARPA, which is kinda cool except for the whole “spying on my biddness” aspect.

By Mattheus Mei on May 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Will, your “eyes and ears” reference is from a 1997 paper, and never mentions Rumsfeld directly, only the office of SoD. And as for his description in 2002, if anything we’ve learned over the past eight years it’s how little the Bush Administration has actually listened to the Intelligence Community (can we say Richard Clark?) and has acted out on itself. I’m not necessarily trying to defend Mr. Lotz and his work at the DoD – he can do that himself, BUT, in light of all we’ve learned (now with McClellan most recently and let’s not forget Sec. Paul O’Neil’s book) there’s plenty of blame to go around, and most of it resides at the very tip top – Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney, Bush.

As far as the work he did under Clinton, again – the decision to go after Bin Laden rested entirely with the President, remember we had the intel and knew exactly where he was (thanks Mr. Lotz) but Clinton, the He-Clinton as opposed to the She-Clinton running for POTUS, opted not to go after him, issued no orders:

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200310170939.asp

I think if people put things into context – and in believing South Carolinaians will do so, I may be setting myself up for hughe disappointment – it might be possible that this won’t hurt Mr. Lotz chances, perhaps even make him stronger, if he can drive the point home that ‘he had the info and gave it, but they – Bush/Cheney and the Gang – didn’t listen.’

By Mickey Blue Eyes on May 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

So, he was in charge when the Islamists were planning their attacks and he let them do it? You mean to tell me he could have stopped the attacks but chose not to?

“I did such a good job on stopping the 9/11 attacks, vote for me so I can do the same good job in congress.”

By Mattheus Mei on May 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

I suppose the reaction of Mickey Blue Eyes was the desired effect Will? Congratulations if so.

By fitsnews on May 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Mattheus,

We could honestly give a rat’s ass who the Democratic sacrificial lamb is in the Second District. We’re just reporting the facts, dude …

-FITSNews

By H.R. Pufnstuf on May 30th, 2008 at 8:51 am

Frankly, I rarely agree with Will Folks on anything, but Post #6 were my thoughts to a “T”. (However, Rob Miller does have a great commercial out).
Joe Wilson is about as bright as a gray crayon, and the “Turtleman” http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gn8EQ0azXpQ would be a better congressman than Wilson. However, due to the inability for citizens in the 2nd Congressional District to see that Joe Wilson’s rubber stamp voting record is actually hurting them, we’ll have to see that dumb bastard go back into office.
Here’s an idea Joe… take a lesson from John Spratt, and realize what your duties are in Congress.

By Mattheus Mei on May 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Will, I understand your position in the matter, man…

But sometimes it’s not enough to just report “facts” if you can’t back it up with substantive information, your piece’s lack of substance (no pun intended), mixed with your, how should we say it — colourful and persuasive prose style — can and does lead to conclusions such as Mr. Eyes’.

If you’re “just reporting the facts” and seeking to be considered a legitimate news source then at some point in time the armchair editorializing must be put to the side, IF it’s your desire to have any journalistic credibility.

Now I’m speaking to the choir myself as well with that one, but it’s very important (for we bloggers) to be cogent of “the line” and to be able to self-police when it comes to “the facts”

By Herschel on June 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

“We could honestly give a rat’s ass who the Democratic sacrificial lamb is in the Second District. We’re just reporting the facts, dude …”

That certainly is not reflected in the original article. That’s not reporting!

Leave a Comment