Dumb Intelligence

Barely a year after the Khobar Towers bombing that killed 19 American servicemen, U.S. intelligence agencies were monitoring a key figure in the global fight against the bad guys ... Princess Diana.

Huh?

American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana's telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Evening Standard has learned.

She was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts.

Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too "dangerous" to take her sons there.
Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash.

The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard comes as it emerged that Princess Diana's phone was bugged by US intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services.

We'll reportedly learn more this week about why -- or even if -- U.S. intelligence agencies were keeping tabs on Diana. CBS News is reporting that the NSA will deny it tapped her telephones and that any mention of her in top-secret files was because people actually being monitored discussed her.

Meanwhile, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, is having a hard time with some simple geopolitical questions.

I thought it only right now to pose the same questions to a Democrat, especially one who will take charge of the Intelligence panel come January. The former border patrol agent also sits on the Armed Services Committee.

Reyes stumbled when I asked him a simple question about al Qaeda at the end of a 40-minute interview in his office last week. Members of the Intelligence Committee, mind you, are paid $165,200 a year to know more than basic facts about our foes in the Middle East.

We warmed up with a long discussion about intelligence issues and Iraq. And then we veered into terrorism’s major players.

To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: Who's on what side?

The dialogue went like this:

Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?

"Al Qaeda, they have both," Reyes said. "You're talking about predominately?"

"Sure," I said, not knowing what else to say.

"Predominantly -- probably Shiite," he ventured.

He couldn't have been more wrong.

Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they'd slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.

That's because the extremist Sunnis who make up al Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.

Al Qaeda's Sunni roots account for its very existence. Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the Saudi Royal family besmirched the true faith through their corruption and alliance with the United States, particularly allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

It's been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center.

Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?

Good question. Maybe this is why we focus on a fairly insignificant person like a former British royal rather than people who are trying to kill us. It's the intelligence equivalent to: "Math be hard." I guess it's better than having a bribe-taking, impeached judge in charge. But it's not better than having Jane Harman as chairwoman of this highly important congressional oversight committee.