The Buzz

When actress Jennifer Garner signed on to play CIA agent Sydney Bristow in the ABC TV series "Alias," she got help in researching her character straight from the source: the CIA itself. The agency's "film industry liaison" worked with the show's producers "to educate them on fundamental trade craft," according to the CIA public affairs office.

Now Garner is returning the favor by appearing in a video on the CIA's Web site (www.cia.gov/employment) urging Americans to consider intelligence careers. "People with integrity, common sense, patriotism and courage . . . have always worked for the agency," says Garner in the video. "But since the tragic events of 9/11, the CIA has an even stronger need for creative, innovative, flexible men and women from diverse backgrounds with a broad range of perspectives."

CIA officials clearly couldn't be happier to have one of Hollywood's hottest young actresses as the spokeswoman for their recruiting efforts. "Although the show "Alias" is fictional, the character Jennifer Garner plays embodies the integrity, patriotism and intelligence the CIA looks for in its officers," agency officials said in unveiling the video.

But any Garner fans who are suddenly taken with the notion of spying as a career should take note. All applicants, the CIA warns, must "be prepared to undergo a thorough background investigation examining your life's history, your character, trustworthiness, reliability and soundness of judgment. We also examine your freedom from conflicting allegiances, potential to be coerced, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling and the protection of sensitive information."

BASE CONCERNS

One of the lesser-noticed points of difference between President Bush and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry is on the issue of military base closings.

The Bush administration is adamant about starting a new round of the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process next year. In late March, the Pentagon reported that the military has 24 percent more capacity than it needs. More specifically, the Army has 29 percent excess infrastructure, the Air Force 24 percent, the Navy 21 percent and the Defense Logistics Agency 17 percent.

"Without the flexibility of the BRAC process, the department is substantially hamstrung from realigning its forces and bases to both respond to and encourage further innovations to sharpen our military capability against an agile threat," Defense officials concluded in the report, which was required by Congress.

Kerry isn't buying that line. Earlier this year, he told the Portsmouth, N.H., Herald that next year's BRAC process should be suspended until a long-range view of future military force structure is completed. The Bush administration's plan for closing bases is driven "more by ideology than careful planning," he charged.

"If the ideology is saving the taxpayers' money, then I am guilty as charged," says Raymond DuBois, deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment. He says the goal of BRAC is to eliminate the military's Cold War infrastructure, and delaying the next round would waste money and leave military commanders without required infrastructure.

Kerry voted in favor of the 2005 round of base closures in 2001. A Bush campaign spokesperson points to that vote as evidence that Kerry is "playing politics with national security issues."

ON THE RECORD

Colin Powell, secretary of State, spoke with National Journal staff correspondent james kitfield in March. Some excerpts from the interview:

On reaction to the Bush administration's "pre-emption" doctrine: Perhaps because of my military background, pre-emption is not something that seems all that extraordinary to me. In my view, pre-emption is a tactic or strategy, which states that you will pre-empt danger that is heading your way, whether it comes from a rogue, a terrorist organization, or another nation. If we had known the Japanese aircraft carriers were sailing toward Honolulu on that fateful morning in 1941, for instance, we would have pre-empted it.

The other aspect of our National Security Strategy that received so much attention was back in the defense section, where we make reference to the point that we want to be militarily stronger than anyone else. People said, "Oh, my God! What a shocking thing to say. We're shocked, shocked!"

We are? Why else have we been working all these years to build the finest, strongest military on the face of the earth? In my view, we have always worked hard to build the strongest military, to scare people into not bothering you, threatening your interests, or attacking you.

On reports of ideological divides in the administration's national security team: You all enjoy writing about this divide, and it's a constant in all of the articles that come out. There's always the need to find some debate or disagreement like this. And, frankly, there are debates and disagreements. I've never been in an administration where there weren't. You know, I cut my milk teeth on similar debates between [Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar] Weinberger and [Reagan Secretary of State George] Schultz.

I mean, this is not new to me. This is government. And it would be a very boring government if we all sat around agreeing with each other. We do have strong views and strong personalities in this administration, and we argue these things out.

On his reputation: I am generally regarded as a moderate chap who tries to solve problems, and who tries to solve them working with friends and allies. I was raised as somebody who knows all about war, who knows what it is to see dead people, who knows what it is to kill people. And if I can avoid that, I will try to avoid it. If that paints me as whatever label you choose to put on me, I could care less. I have seen war. I have lived it. And I am proud of those instances where I have prevented war, just as I am proud of having served my nation in war.

PARK SERVICE EXECUTIVES GROUNDED

National Park Service Director Fran Mainella announced in late March that the agency would suspend all foreign travel in response to concerns from lawmakers about expenses that have forced some national parks to consider cutting hours of operation and services.

A General Accounting Office report last year found travel increased 29 percent from fiscal 2000 to fiscal 2002, when it reached $50 million. The agency managed to reduce that amount to $44 million last year.

Foreign trips reported by the Park Service in fiscal 2003 and the first quarter of fiscal 2004 totaled $352,644, according to Interior Department documents. The largest single expenditure was for a trip by a staffer in the Alaska regional office to the Congo, at a $9,315 cost. Other trips included a $2,000 visit to Liechtenstein by a staffer at Grand Canyon National Park.

Mainella also promised greater scrutiny of domestic travel, with the aim of reducing it by 10 percent. In addition, she said the National Park Service would examine its large partnership efforts, such as a $100 million visitor center and museum project in Valley Forge, Pa., which the agency undertook before consulting the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.