Posted on 12/08/2004 4:54:13 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
The scattered agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community are about to get a new leader. The question is: Will that person have enough authority to make them follow?...
Several officials voiced concern that having the president referee such disputes is likely to favor powerful players in the administration, particularly Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, whom Bush asked last week to serve a second term.
Many of the provisions in the bill amount to "throwing the ball back in the president's camp," Turner said. "And I'm very worried because it appears this president won't buck Rumsfeld."...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
el bumpo
Greg, after four years, you've learned nothing.
Stay in Kalifornia.
As in Stansfield Turner, CIA director under President Carter.
With what Turner did to the CIA under Carter, this is like asking Willie Horton his opinion on banking reform!
I thought the problem before 9/11 was that voices warning of problems got filtered out before they reached the top.
How does creating yet another filter at the top, yet another layer of management, help dissenting and conflicting information get to the top?
If part of the problem is a politicized CIA, and I believe it is, how does giving its DCI more power over other agencies solve that problem? How is our new "czar" anything more than a DCI with slightly more power?
Can anyone blame the Pentagon for wanting to keep its intel assets out from under CIA control?
Centralizing all control over intelligence leaves little room for dissenting or innovative opinion. The country keeps moving to a more authoritarian system. Where does it leave our state law enforcement and local police agencies? Out in the cold? This is not good.
Many of the provisions in the bill amount to "throwing the ball back in the president's camp," Turner said. "And I'm very worried because it appears this president won't buck Rumsfeld."...The establishment through the 9.11 commision had hoped to use this bill to drive a wedge between Bush and his own advisors and hamstring the DOD in favor of the more establishment-friendly state department and CIA--apparently, they failed.
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the so-called "liberal" left is seemingly now obsessed with creating an all-powerful, centralized intelligence czar? :-)
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.