The Missoulian from Missoula, Montana • 6

I Thi Miiioulmn, Wedmsday, April 20. 1977 EDTOIRBAL PAGE editorials, letters, opinion good luck, zeno b. b. to him. That sounds excellent for a politician's son, unless he uses such art on his parents.

Plutarch quotes Timon of Phlius as writing of this Zeno: "Also the two-edged tongue of mighty Zeno, who, Say what one would, could argue it untrue." What we might have on our hands is another great philosopher, or even a Jimmy Carter. The mind boggles. Good luck, Zeno B. Baucus. Reynolds rary of Cicero.

That Zeno also labored in Athens but was an Epicurean philosopher. The baby couldn't be named after him. It must be an earlier Zeno, far earlier. The earliest Zeno was a native of Elea (Velia) in Italy, and he also wound up in Athens. (Athens had something going for it.

It had trouble winning wars, but no trouble winning philosophers, and assuredly not Zenos.) The earliest Zeno helped tutor the great Athenian statesman Pericles, and was one of the chief advocates of the Eleatic school of philosophy. He was the Zeno of the Paradox, whose intellectual art involved reducing to the absurd the arguments of those opposed The latter reason sounds useful for the son of a politician, albeit sort of wishful thinking. Wish the boy well. But who was the ancient Zeno? Or rather, which ancient Zeno is involved? It might not be altogether good. There was the Zeno who founded the Stoic philosophy.

He was shipwrecked near Piraeus, the port of Athens, and set up shop in Athens. There, after many years of study, he founded the Stoic school. Though a little stoicism in the Baucus tad might serve him well, that Zeno doesn't sound quite like the Zeno who Max Baucus had in mind. Nor does the Zeno who was a contempo- After a long period of suspense, during which the baby was born, knocked around a bit, and was fed by papa on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, at last it was named: Zeno Benjamin Baucus. That's better than a lot of names.

Like Midbaw Snodgrass Baucus, for example. Papa Max Baucus came to Missoula last week and said in an interview the baby was I named after the Greek philosopher Zeno be-! cause he (papa) liked the name and because his wife once read about a fellow named Zeno who, according to the interview, "al- ways found himself in troublesome circumst-; ances and always took them with a grain of salt." senate race shaping up Isn't it interesting how hard Max Baucus is running for the U.S. Senate without officially doing so? Suddenly his copious flow of news releases contains detailed references to such agricultural issues such as the federal wheat program, rural health problems and his concern for small farm programs, all of considerable importance to a potential eastern Montana constituency to whom he is largely unkown. And then we TZZ the KeJiBrl by Dale Burk lrnMC'SS 10 YOUR TK0S JJ to smoke out the real Max Baucus and the real Tom Judge. At this point the question isn't which of the two, but either.

Are they qualified to be a senator? Both have weaknesses that deserve public scrutiny. One wonders if Judge's unsavory political history and the question of integrity swirling around his missing $94,000 in campaign funds won't catch up with him in a race against Baucus, whose integrity is unquestioned. Yet Baucus has consistently disappointed many of his constituents for an apparent unwillingness to tackle tough issues on the basis of the issue involved and in some cases understand what the basic issues are. A prime example is his attempt to ride the middle of the road on the recent off-road vehicle controversy. In that case, he not only tried to appease all concerned but actually misrepresented (or misunderstood) the basic issue involved.

Perhaps fence-straddling and waffling on issues is what the public wants in a politician. If so Baucus can certainly give them that. However, he aspires to be identified with former Sen. Mike Mansfield, if continual mention of Mansfield's name in Baucus' press releases means anything, and Baucus could learn a thing or two by recalling Mike's basic stance as a politician. Mansfield used to say "Here's what I stand for, and if you don't like it, don't elect me." And then he continued through on that by actually standing for what he said he did; you seldom saw Mansfield involved in an issue on which he did not take a position publicly.

Both Baucus and Judge could revolutionize their political stances by doing the same thing, and that's not too much to ask of someone who wants to be a U.S. senator. The real question is not one of whether Baucus would beat Judge, or vice versa, but whether either really merits nomination for, or election to, the U.S. Senate. election as governor.

The main consideration is how he would do in a statewide race with Baucus. Most persons knowledgeable in state politics concede that Baucus would easily beat Judge if the voting were only in western Montana. But a senatorial race is another thing, and Baucus has yet to compete in a statewide campaign. The consensus seems to be that if the election were held right now Judge would overwhelm Baucus in eastern Montana. That may be true, but it's a specious opinion because it doesn't measure the effect a campaign would have on the outcome.

Baucus is a good campaigner and he has charisma, something Judge decidedly does not have. Right now it's impossible to say how well or how poorly Baucus would do in cutting into Judge's supposed margin in eastern Montana. The balance point, knowledgeable sources in Democratic party politics say, is that Baucus would far outstrip Judge in western Montana voting. The question then is which candidate would pick up the widest margin in his specific stronghold and gain a sufficient edge to provide victory? There's a catch, however. These presumptions assume that only Baucus and Judge would be seeking the Democratic nomination.

That assumption may be wrong. The presence of a third candidate, one of a conservative bent, could really tip the scales with the result that any expected margin by either Baucus or Judge would vanish. Whatever the case, this political battle looms as the most titillating of the 1978 election with the possible exception of the race to replace Baucus as western district congressman. Upwards of a half-dozen Democrats alone have expressed an interest in trying for Baucus' job and the primary could be a real Oonnybrook. The senatorial battle, however, remains the big one.

And the public could be the real winner if it uses the campaign 'Scuse me, sir I was wondering if you'd core to be born again letters learn he is conducting a poll across the entire state, and he admits the poll is being done to get a grasp of voter concerns in eastern Montana. Baucus probably has to do all that, to raise his visibility as a statewide rather than regional candidate. That's why it's even more interesting that his most-talked-about potential opponent for the Democratic senatorial nomination in 1978, Gov. Thomas L. Judge, is playing coy with his candidacy at the moment.

And well Judge might. Baucus laid the gauntlet down in his comments about Judge's possible candidacy. Judge promised in a Montana Television Network interview last fall that he would "absolutely" serve a full four-year term if elected governor. To do otherwise would mean that Judge then lied. "Tom (Judge) said during his campaign last fall that he planned to serve a four-year term as governor, and I take his word that he would do that," Baucus said.

"If he changes and goes back on his word, that's his decision; that's fine if that's what he decides." It's difficult to predict what impact living with a lie would have on a Judge candidacy for the Senate, but it's doubtful that it would worry him much. He's lived with the same problem in the past and it didn't seem to hurt his run for re most concerned and The children, their parents and1 the community as a whole. May the West Side residents stand firm and work as one in their efforts to defeat this ques-' tionable and unnecessary busing" and-or closure. May our flag fly high and; proud over the Lowell School as it continues to function in the purpose for which it was intend-; ed: A school for the neighborhood children. Wavie Charl-" ton, Box 298, Plains.

be applied here. It would not only be unfair to, and work a hardship on, the children concerned, the parents would also suffer a sudden decline of property values. The foremost, and certainly very feeble, excuse offered for such closure has been given as "low school enrollment." Surely this could be corrected by enlarging the school zone boundaries. One wonders just what is the real crux of this proposal? Who will benefit? Certainly not those stand firm It is with much concern that I have read of the seemingly "dedicated" effort to close the Lowell School. At present I am not a resident of Missoula.

However, it was my home for most of the past 35 years. Some of my children attended Lowell School followed in turn by my grandchildren and now my great-grandchildren. No doubt those who wish to close the school will say, "That's sentiment." Very well, let's for get about sentiment and consider the Lowell School controversy per se. Lowell School is an integral part of that lovely, West Side residential area. It is a necessary and loved fixture around which the lives of the West Side children as well as their parents revolve.

The desire to close the school cannot in any sense of the word be termed "in the best interests of" or "in the name of progress," for it is neither. Those overworked cliches just cannot cia remains unsettled by shakeups and leaks Ray Cline, now director of the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies, takes issue with "the journalistic keepers of our conscience" and their "post-Watergate sense of outrage" at CIA secrecy. "Journalists, above all others, know how tragic it is to lose a good source, not only because of the direct loss of information in any given case but also because of the inhibiting effect on other potential sources," Cline wrote recently. Cline added: "A secret relationship, which may have taken years to build up, is instantly and irrevocably destroyed when exposed. I do not believe newspaper managers, editors or reporters are qualified to make the complex judgments involved." William E.

Colby, former CIA director, underlines an irony. An Internal Revenue Service employe who reveals your income tax return is subject to criminal prosecution. So is an Agriculture Department employe who reveals crop estimates to a commodities speculator. But there is nothing the CIA can do about a CIA operator like Philip Agee, who wrote a book naming names of CIA agents, thus exposing them to Communist counter-measures or terrorist action. Recently the Justice Department announced that Agee could return to the United States from Britain, which wants to deport him under its Official Secrets Act, without fear of being arrested.

Agee could, possibly, be charged under the Espionage Act. But to take the case to court would, as one CIA officer put it, be counter-productive. "To convict him, we would have to reveal more secrets in open court," this official said, "and that would be selling the farm to catch the chicken." The same problem applies to a low-level CIA who last December tossed a package of CIA documents over the wall of the Soviet embassy in Washington. The embassy guard apparently thought the parcel contained a bomb and promptly called the cops. Thus the Russians, to their chagrin, never got a look at the contents of the package.

But if and when the case goes to court, the defense will certainly demand that the CIA material be introduced as evidence. "Then it won't be secret any more," a CIA man summed up. ance cannot be over-estimated." The estimates have come under attack in recent years, especially on issues of Soviet military capabilities and intentions. Bowie's appointment reminded oldtimers of another Harvard professor, William L. Langer, a historian, who held the same job more than 25 years ago.

The agency's board of estimates was scrapped four years ago and replaced with 10 intelligence officers directly responsible to the director for various areas and subjects. Bowie's appointment promises to restore to the estimates what Ray S. Cline, a former deputy CIA director, called "an independent and objective scholarly image." "I took this job because I feel strongly about the estimate function," said Bowie, founder of Harvard's Center for International Affairs and a former member of the State Department's policy planning board. "The estimate has been tarnished and I would like to restore its integrity," he added. While Turner is off to a good start, some old and far-reaching problems that have plagued the agency remain unresolved.

They revolve around the central question of how to operate an intelligence agency in an open society, especially one as open as the United States. No one has come up with a satisfactory answer to that question nor is anyone likely to. Half a dozen bills are floating around Congress aimed at reorganizing the CIA or tightening up its secrets. At his confirmation hearing, Turner said he was "amenable" to a law that would make the disclosure of CIA secrets a criminal offense. He was quickly corrected by his boss, Carter, who favors tightening up CIA secrets by limiting the number of people who have access to them.

Stung by the Washington Post disclosure that King Hussein of Jordan and nearly a score of other foreign leaders had been receiving CIA money, Carter complained that at least 75 congressmen had access to CIA secrets. Carter wanted one key congressional committee to oversee CIA clandestine operations, and the fewer members the better. The President's complaint was not new. Even before the United States had a President, the Committee of Secret Correspondence refused to share what it knew with other members of the Continental Congress in 1776 because "the Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets." As matters now stand, CIA secrets are regarded as fair game for investigative reporters on the model of Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, who also broke the story about the payments to King Hussein in February. all people," said one CIA officer, "newspaper reporters should respect confidentiality.

Some of them have gone to jail rather than reveal their sources. Would Bob Woodward reveal the identity of Deep Throat? Hell no! But he sees nothing wrong in breaking a story that damages the national security." By KEYES BEECH (c) Chicago Daily News WASHINGTON The other day a reporter called a senior CIA official at the agency's splendidly isolated headquarters in Langley, whose secrets are now guarded by flowering dogwood, cherry and tulip trees, and ruined his day with an offhand remark: "I hear you're being fired." "It could be," the CIA man said calmly, "but nobody has told me yet." He isn't going to be fired. Far from it. But the thought of quitting has crossed his mind more than once during the last few years. His reaction to the reporter's fishing expedition was more or less typical of the wary attitude of a good many career intelligence officers who, battered and bruised by congressional investigations, newspaper exposes, wholesale revelations of CIA misdeeds and being blamed for everything in the book with the possible exception of lousy weather, wonder what's going to happen next.

No one can be sure what's going to happen next. But what is happening right now to the CIA and the rest of the U.S. intelligence community is Adm. Stansfield Turner, the new director of central intelligence. A brisk, crisp Chicago-born onetime Rhodes scholar who was picked for the job by a U.S.

Naval Academy classmate named Jimmy Carter, Turner promises to be the best thing that has happened to the CIA since the invention of the electronic bug. As a military man, he commands the respect of military professionals; 80 per cent of all intelligence funds come out of the Defense Department budget. As an intellectual, he commands the respect of academics. And, most important, he has the respect and the ear of the President, whose personal intelligence officer he is. Despite these admirable credentials, the admiral is not without his critics in CIA corridors.

Some career officers complain that he has surrounded himself with a screen of naval aides which limits access to him. Turner's disarming reply to this is that he land-, ed running and needed some of his own crew. The "screen," as one news magazine described it, consists of four Navy men, and one of them is leaving soon. The admiral's naval shakedown approach to his new job has nettled some professionals, one of whom grumbled: "He wants to reorganize things. I wish to hell they'd just leave me alone so I could do my job." "It's the same with every new director," said a 25-year CIA veteran.

"He comes in and discovers the wheel. Let me tell you something: It's still round." Perhaps that is the real source of some of the testiness of the CIA professionals. The CIA has had four directors in four years, three of them in a sin- 1 rnsccQuSian America's Red gle year, all of them with varying ideas on how the agency should be run. One of the more judicious CIA officers sees little or nothing to criticize in Turner's performance thus far. According to this source, Turner's predecessor, George Bush, shut himself off from all but the complexities of his job.

"Bush also made more changes during his first few weeks in office than Turner has," this CIA man observed. Because Bush was a high-ranking Republican politician, many CIA officers shuddered at the thought he would politicize the agency. As they later confessed, they were dead wrong. Bush was not only good for the agency, in their view, but they would have liked to see him stay on. Bush would have, if he had been asked, which he wasn't.

Light District Suspicions of a "Navy coup" were aroused when Turner sacked his public affairs officer, a former U.S. Information Agency man, and brought in a retired Navy captain to take his place. But Turner has promised more, not less, press access to CIA affairs within the limits of national security. Turner's most widely applauded appointment was to name Harvard Prof. Robert R.

Bowie, 67, a man with wide experience in and outside government, as deputy director for national intelligence. In that job Bowie will be responsible for CIA intelligence estimates, the agency's most prestigious product. "The intelligence estimate," said one CIA veteran, "is the ultimate refinement of all the intelligence we have from available sources. It is the basis of presidential decisions. Its import Founded May 1,1873 JOHN TALBOT-PUBLISHER EDWARD A.

COYLE-EDITOR SAM REYNOLDS-EDITORIAL FW3E EDITOR.