Bush Sees Need for Reorganizing U.S. Intelligence

[conjur]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13BUSH.html?ex=1082433600&en=9a4d4c0e78f225fe&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

WASHINGTON, April 12 ? President Bush said Monday that "now may be a time to revamp and reform our intelligence services," opening the way for consideration of changes at the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies.

Really??? Ya don't say!

Wow. We's gots us a smart President!

The Bush administration has not acted on a number of far-reaching proposals to reorganize the government's intelligence organizations, including recommendations made last year by a Congressional inquiry into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and other independent intelligence panels.

Well, it had nothing to do with going to war on Iraq so, of course, it got shoved to the back of the line.

Expanding the powers of the director of central intelligence and establishing a domestic intelligence agency like the MI5 in Britain are among ideas now circulating in Washington as the independent commission looking into the attacks holds hearings and prepares to make its own recommendations.

Hmm...exactly as Richard Clarke had suggested!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So are you saying that the previous President's were dumb because they didn't see a need to reorganize the intelligence agencies?

Ofcourse conjur would like to make this an entirely partisan issue but those who really care about this understand that the development of the Homeland Security Department and the like was ultimately a good thing and a first step towards the reforming our intelligence structure. Hopefully the 9/11 commission can shed further light on what further changes need to be implemented so future attacks can be dealt with before they actually occur.

CkG

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So are you saying that the previous President's were dumb because they didn't see a need to reorganize the intelligence agencies?

Ofcourse conjur would like to make this an entirely partisan issue but those who really care about this understand that the development of the Homeland Security Department and the like was ultimately a good thing and a first step towards the reforming our intelligence structure. Hopefully the 9/11 commission can shed further light on what further changes need to be implemented so future attacks can be dealt with before they actually occur.

CkG

personally i wonder why we did not have the adjustments made in 2001 in 1993 after the first WTC attack. i might have emntioned this in another thread but i forgot which one

why no war on terror in 93?

 

[DealMonkey]

When another incident of domestic terrorism occurs, or doesn't occur, as one or the other mostly likely will occur (or not occur) at some point, perhaps you guys can help me sort-out exactly how I should vote in November as to not capitulate to terrorism:

For example, if the terrorists DO attack prior to November 2004, does that mean they want Bush out of the White House as their anger vented in the form of an attack means they are unhappy with Bush's leadership?

Or does it mean that they like Bush's policies and want to ensure his re-election as Americans will surely rally around the president?

Or, if they DON'T attack prior to November, is that a signal that Bush should get the nod, as silence is indicative of tacit approval of Bush's policies?

Or perhaps the lack of an attack means that Kerry should get the nod because the terrorists want to ensure that Americans don't rally around the president and therefore they are signaling their support for Kerry?

Holy crap you guys, what will we ever do to ensure we don't capitulate? How will we ever decode these seemingly impossible-to-read signals from the terrorists?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

The Bush administration has not acted on a number of far-reaching proposals to reorganize the government's intelligence organizations, including recommendations made last year by a Congressional inquiry into the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and other independent intelligence panels.

Well, it had nothing to do with going to war on Iraq so, of course, it got shoved to the back of the line.

I think you might finally be getting it, conjur. Bush has a doctrine, and will act on proposals that fall in
line with it, like the ones Rice outlined before the 9/11 attacks and yes I am sure that she took Clarkes
suggestions to heart in her outlines, I mean her outline did mention the quagmire in intel sharing, and
mimics a lot of Clarke.

The undelivered speech by rice, you know the one that outlines missile defense ? It also has
nothing to do with the war in Iraq, but is moving forward in huge leaps.

Expanding the powers of the director of central intelligence and establishing a domestic intelligence agency like the MI5 in Britain are among ideas now circulating in Washington as the independent commission looking into the attacks holds hearings and prepares to make its own recommendations.

Hmm...exactly as Richard Clarke had suggested!

Clarke was a politician, confined by his position to only make suggestions ,
and I don't doubt his service or his knowledge.

I do however have a problem with his character.

He could have strived to achieve a position of greater power, to be more than an idea man.

Instead, well we know the path he took.

What he takes part in, in my opinion, it serves to embolden terrorism.
It also is contradictory to his 30 years of service, and
contradictory to the picture he paints of Richard Clarke.

 

[girlgeek]

I hate to see Clinton and Bush getting smeared for not taking action before 9/11. Where the f*ck was Congress for 9 years? Don't they have all these powerful committees, that get the same intel as the President? Who was out there, beating the bushes (no pun intended) for better info sharing and security? No one. They were sitting on their thumbs as much as Clinton. At least W was getting the ball rolling, when things went pear-shaped.

 

[PainTrain]

I see it differently. Call it a "half-empty half-full" sort of perspective, but I think for a man of such ego it speaks volumes for Clarke to put 30 years of experience in counter-terrorism and related policy development on the chopping block like he has. I can sort of understand how you suggest that he may not have fulfilled his capabilities but it seems that he has made a gamble, or a sacrafice if you will, on offering his message to the public. He obviously truly believes this adminisatration has made some egregious misjudgments when it came to foreign policy and it seems he doesn't expect them to improve anytime soon. Otherwise he would still be working with them, and not against them. And just because he criticezes a sitting administration does not in any way, shape or form make him anything less than an extremely patriotic and dedicated public servant. If after thirty years you or I have a public service record like he does then we can realistcly question his commitment to duty and patriotism. Now if he had kept those beliefs to himself and not acted in what he felt was in the best interest of his naiton, then I wouldn't be so quick to call him a patriotic and dedicated "public servant."

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: conjur

WASHINGTON, April 12 ? President Bush said Monday that "now may be a time to revamp and reform our intelligence services," opening the way for consideration of changes at the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other agencies.

ok, so it has been 2 1/2 years since 9-11 and over a year since we have been in Iraq. Before, during and since that time, intelligence failures all around. Agencies not communicating with each other. Reports from regional offices not reaching the top of the FBI. Yellow Cake from Niger. WMD claims. Tenet saying that he had no idea that the head of a Pentagon intel office had circumvented the CIA and had met with White House officials giving them the office's (sketchy) conclusions about supposed Iraq-al-Qaida links.

Faulty intel, shady advisors,
Can you tell me if anyone has been FIRED from any of this.
It's like this - everyone is so responsible that no one is to blame.
Where is the so-called Liberal media asking the question why no one has been fired or forced to resign over any of this. Instead we get congratulatory send-offs for Freeh. Tenet for some reason still has a job.
The only person without a job is seems is Richard Clarke and he left on his own.
Now, we need to revamp the intelligence agency. After 9-11 nope. After Iraq? nope. ok. now.
"fool me once, shame on?shame on you. Fool me?you can't get fooled again."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Clarke was a politician, confined by his position to only make suggestions ,
and I don't doubt his service or his knowledge.

I do however have a problem with his character.

He could have strived to achieve a position of greater power, to be more than an idea man.

Instead, well we know the path he took.

What he takes part in, in my opinion, it serves to embolden terrorism.
It also is contradictory to his 30 years of service, and
contradictory to the picture he paints of Richard Clarke.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

You said Clarke was a politician but yet he didn't seek to achieve a position of greater power. Why should he have? He lived, ate, and breathed counterterrorism.

You obviously haven't read his book and make some grand assumptions that you know him.