Posted on 08/03/2004 6:49:46 PM PDT by South40
SEATTLE – Two Sept. 11 commission members questioned President Bush's proposal for a national intelligence director, saying Tuesday that whoever holds the job should have the power to control spending and staff at all 15 U.S. spy agencies.
Two others, meanwhile, declined to criticize the president and said they wanted to avoid being seen as overly political.
Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said the post would be weakened by anything less than full budget authority and the ability to hire and fire.
"Providing a figurehead is not what we intended," Ben-Veniste said.
On Monday, Bush announced his support for a national intelligence chief and a national center to plan counterterror operations in the United States and abroad, two key recommendations of the bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He rejected the commission's recommendation that the new intelligence director control all intelligence budgets and have the authority to choose who would lead the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies. Bush also turned aside the commission's idea for placing both the counterterrorism center and the director within the White House.
In Boston, two other commission members declined to join in criticism of the president.
"If we're ever perceived as being political, our mission would be jeopardized," said Fred Fielding, a Washington lawyer and Republican member of the commission.
Jamie Gorelick, a former assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration who served on the commission, called Bush's announcement "a helpful opening position" but did not insist the president adopt all the recommendations.
"Our recommendations are not a holy writ," she said, refusing to join the chorus of Democrats criticizing Bush for his plan. "We don't have a monopoly on wisdom, and there may be better ideas."
All four commission members were on a nationwide tour to promote the commission's proposals.
The commission made up of five Republicans and five Democrats released the findings of its 20-month investigation two weeks ago. The report doesn't blame Bush or former President Clinton for government missteps that contributed to the attacks. But it does say they failed to make anti-terrorism enough of a priority.
Although critical of the president's plan for an intelligence chief, Gorton and Ben-Veniste did credit Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge for issuing a more specific terror alert over the weekend, warning of potential attacks at "iconic" financial institutions in Washington, D.C., and New York.
They said they had previously told Ridge that vague nationwide alerts did little but potentially damage the government's credibility.
"The credibility of these alerts is paramount," Ben-Veniste said.
Too late.
What a sham. How much money is still being spent on this kangaroo court?
I can't believe Gorelick would say this, good for her. I haven't been following this all that closely but the idea of giving all of this power to one individual doesn't appeal to me in the least. Integration of intelligence operations is one thing but I will have to read a lot more to be convinced that this is the answer.
They became experts shortly after Sandy Berger spent several days purloining documents from the national archives....and we all know what an expert is...X is the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure...ba da bing
Boortz hit the nail on the head today. This commission was charged with reporting out their findings of what went wrong not preach to us what should be done about it. Ignore 'em.
If Bush is going to do this anyway...there is no need for a new department. We have Homeland Security. All the information can be handled there. In fact the information should be in more than one location just in case. Make the Director of Homeland Security the new Intel Czar and be done with this nonsense. The first thing we must do is CLOSE THE DAMNED BORDERS TO ANYONE FROM A TERRORIST, ISLAMIC, OR ANY OTHER STATE THAT SUPPORTS TERRORISM IN ANY FORM. Now that did not cost a single taxpayer a dime did it?
Ben-Veniste. How much power does this SOB have?
Zero...other than the power to influence the weak-minded liberals who believe him.
Exactly! But the libs on the panel just can't help but try and use their findings to help elect the traitor, John Kerry.
Given the choice between President Bush and that RAT bastard, ben Vineste, who do you think I would choose?
It's hard to take these people seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.