Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post
Newsgroups: americast.wpost
From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com
Organization: American Cybercasting
Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com
Subject: 'A Series of Blunders . . . Lapses in Judgment'<
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 04:44:31 EST
Message-ID: <38.1992Nov19.044432@AmeriCast.com>


Excerpts from remarks by acting Secretary of State Lawrence S.
Eagleburger:First, this entire episode put the State Department
front and center in the one place it should never be - the polit-
ical arena. Both Secretary Baker (former secretary of state James
A. Baker III, now White House chief of staff) and I have always
sought to conduct the business of this building on the basis of
the country's national interest, nothing less and nothing more.

The State Department is composed of individuals dedicated to
serving their country with the highest standards of conduct. I
truly regret, therefore, anything that has been done to undermine
the integrity of this institution. As the head of this depart-
ment, I must and I do take responsibility for the events that Mr.
Funk (State Department Inspector General Sherman M. Funk) will
detail to you shortly.

On the basis of his report, I will take appropriate steps to be-
gin the process of restoring the tarnished image of this depart-
ment.

Second, I want to note that this has not been a criminal investi-
gation, and that the inspector general has not found evidence of
criminal wrongdoing. I should note in this regard that I and I
alone made the decision on the recommendation of the inspector
general to ask the Department of Justice to call in the FBI to
investigate possible criminal tampering of Governor Clinton's
passport application.

As you know, the FBI has determined that there was no evidence of
such tampering. The FBI is also now looking into the past prac-
tice of telephone monitoring by the department's operation
center.

Third, I want to emphasize the conclusion in the report that
there is no evidence to support the allegation that any official
in the State Department above the assistant secretary level in-
stigated, ordered or authorized any of the searches in question.
Similarly, there is no credible evidence to support the allega-
tion that anyone in the department was acting at the direction of
someone outside the department.

I would be naive if I did not expect that people will question
these conclusions. But I urge each of you to suspend your criti-
cal judgments until you too have had an opportunity to review the
inspector general's report in its entirety. It is in my judgment
an impressive document. . . .

There are professionals in this building, civil service and
foreign service. Their obligation and their responsibility is to
serve the political masters that the American people have chosen.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton, or
anybody else putting political appointees in this department that
will carry out his policies, and that are familiar with and sym-
pathetic to the directions in which he wants to go.

The issue is not whether you should have political appointees.
The issue is the kind of people you appoint.<

Excerpts of remarks by State Department Inspector General Sherman
M. Funk:

an attempt to use the Department of State, the records and the
people of the Department of State to influence the outcome of the
presidential election.  That is a very heinous activity, and
shame on the Department of State that it happened. I suspect it
was rather disingenuous to say why was it - received such cover-
age in the press. I would be surprised and disappointed if ac-
tivity like that, once it became public, was not covered ade-
quately in the press. . .

Our conclusions, basically were, as I mentioned at the outset,
yes, there were people who used for political purposes, people
and records in the State Department.

Two, we found no evidence that this had been anything other than
the way we describe it. We found no evidence that it had been or-
chestrated or directed by the White House or by anybody else. We
found no evidence that anybody above the level of assistant
secretary had been involved in any way, or had given direction in
any way.

We concluded that there had been a series of blunders in some
cases, a series of incredibly poor lapses in judgment in other
cases, some politically motivated, some not. We concluded that
there were procedures in the Department of State that needed
tightening and in some cases substantial revision.

We concluded that maybe even one of the laws involved, the Free-
dom of Information Act, and possibly the Privacy Act, required
some tightening, and I discussed that with a member of the Hill
this morning.

And finally, we concluded that there were a number of people who
merited, in our view, disciplinary action. Our normal process for
disciplinary action is to make a recommendation to that effect,
to the director general of the department, who is also the direc-
tor of personnel. . . . The individuals that we were talking
about are for the most part civil service.

And finally, we concluded that it was important that whatever we
can do to institutionalize the process to prevent this kind of
thing from happening again, that we should do. But . . . you're
dealing with human beings, with frailties, with ambitions, with
hopes, and although you can put up all kinds of bars, you can put
up all kinds of prohibitions, you can put up all kinds of safe-
guards and caveats, the fact of the matter is when the push comes
to shove we basically are going to rely upon the integrity of our
people.02:28 11-19C9999-----

Copyright 1992, The Washington Post.  This story is from the
Washington Post's Capitol Edition On-Line and is not to be ar-
chived or redistributed.

For more information, send-email to American Cybercasting Cor-
poration (usa@AmeriCast.COM)