At Bush Pledges Fight Against Evil AP White House Corespondent, AP, June 11, 2002 (posted by TheOtherOne).
From the story ---
[Bush] acknowledged intelligence lapses at the FBI prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Acknowledged.
"I wasn't surprised that the FBI wasn't fully prepared for the war against terror. Because after all, the FBI's major job up until Sept. 11 was to make cases against people who committed crimes already in America. White collar crimes, spies.
He knew that the F.B.I. was not fully prepared to gather intelligence and investigate; but that is among his responsibilities to ensure and direct.
They really weren't focused on preventing attacks. And so we needed to change the culture," Bush said.
"Focus" --- indeed, that is the crux of the new department, a Cabinet Level Department of Focus; but then again, that work is his responsibility to ensure, as it is a part of his duties as Commander-in-Chief, for which operations, the capacity is entirely available within the malleable framework of the Constitutionally authorized war department of our federal government.
The work --- the focus --- is provided for already; a new Department of Focus is not necessary; rather, a new Bush is required, to direct that focus shall happen and at offices designated and by people designated within the war department.
The war department has always been a domestic and global business, each of which missions have always been the prime areas of operation; now, both related to the third major area, space, in "more modern times."
The war department has reorganized, both vertically and horizontally, as required by the times, since its inception; it has such flexibility; it is a phenomenally capable and malleable department within of our form of limited government.
What we need is a new Bush who has the willingness to discover there; but he will have to explore beyond what is "all - on - one - page" - his bottleneck style of information flow, his own design, which is preventing him from knowing more of what capabilities actually are within the war department. (Not to mention what the limits of government power are, as enumerated in our Constitution.)
Here is an excellent observation by FRPR gunshy, Reply 115, at Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security (MORON ALERT), referring to a Tampa Bay Online / AP story by Jennifer R. Brown, June 11, 2002 (posted by Boonie Rat):
I grew up during WWII, to young for military service but old enough to remember civil defense wardens coming through the neighborhoods telling us to close our blackout shades. I remember detention camps for suspected fifth columnists, shore batteries up and down the west coast, rationing of strategic materials and a constant barage of propoganda about keeping security. I remember that anyone that spoke a foreign language or with a foreign accent were immediately suspect. I also remember that we weren't searched when we travelled by car or train or bus, airplanes were not available. The US government asked of americans many sacrifices and their support. Our current government has done none of these things, all it has wanted is to spy on americans in secret and to ignore the Constitution in the name of security.
He has it correct.
What made us something to reckon with, was that we used our freedom and such personal initiative and individual responsibility, as teams, as weapons --- which great strength is being eschewed by the Bush [still running 75% of the Clinton] Administration ... in the federal government's flight to prove itself at our expense(s).
"The other thing we are doing a better job of is having the CIA, which collects information overseas, coordinate with the FBI," the president said.
Again, that has always been the responsibility of a commander-in-chief to affect.
Bush noted that FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director George Tenet now brief him jointly.
An aware Commander-in-Chief would have insisted on this, on the very first day of his/her taking office.
His plans for the new department include a division that would analyze intelligence from the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and others, but without any direct authority over the gathering of the information.
The requirement for intelligence gathering and centralizing the results, is as old as Team A taking on Team B. The Central, repeat Central Intelligence Agency has ALWAYS been tasked with centralizing the info and briefing the President.
"Squabbles" between agencies and departments is a matter for a leader to address and resolve by direction, "Cut that out!"
In a speech at Oak Park High School in Kansas City, Bush said, "We'll have people whose job it is to analyze everything we see and assess everything we hear.
We already have such people, but somebody has not informed the President by placing this gem in a one-page memo; therefore, he is apparently not going to know about it because he will not call a cab, go over to the Pentagon, the C.I.A., and the F.B.I. ... and find out for himself.
Though he actually already knows this; see Ray Cline's work, for starters.
And to make sure it's all in one area, so we can get a clearer picture of what may or may not be happening to America."
Again, the need for focus; it is not a "new paradigm;" see Caesar, et al; and the necessary capacity is ALREADY within the Executive Branch, if only Bush would use the tools he has ... if only he knew that he has such tools ... if only he would gather himself up and apply himself to using them.
________
At Bush Wants Domestic Law Enforcement Agencies "Under One Roof.", Dow Jones Newswires, June 12, 2002 (posted by mconder).
"Therefore, it is important to align authority and responsibility to create accountability," Bush said.
Mr. President, they are all, already accountable; it is up to you to enforce; but you delay.