Protecting us from terrorism with more bureaucracy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lone_Gunman

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,054
Location
United Socialist States of Obama
Check out this proposal from Bush:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/02/bush.911/index.html

Bush wants to create a new intelligence/terrorism "czar" to serve as his principal advisor on terrorism.

Don't we have that covered already? I thought coordinating various intelligence agencies was supposed to be Tom Ridge's job as head of Homeland Security.

It sounds to me like we would be creating another level of bureaucracy to coordinate things that are already being coordinated. The article states this new czar woud have a "large staff".

Sounds like a good way to waste more tax money without accomplishing anything new.
 
I think in general that it could be a good idea but possible to botch in execution.

I was involved in similar work and know the lack of coordination betw the various agencies who act like prima donnas and refuse to share info. FBI/CIA/alphabet soup. Compare to the WWII intel where Nimitz/McArthur/Pentagon/OSS/etc had separate spies who didn't cooperate and the lost opportunities.

I think a select committee of the various agency heads could meet regularly to share their ongoing stuff with each other. Could allow them to see patterns and put puzzle pieces together.
 
Not Bush's idea

Just to get the record straight before the "Bush is the Fount of all Evil" crowd shows up ...

The position was one of the unanimous and bi-partisan major recommendations of the 9/11 commission. They want it to be a cabinet level position.

(Which kind of scares me to think of a partisan character in that crucial role, I'd rather see somone like Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve, appointed for a 6 year term to bridge administrations and not beholden to one particular party.)

Kerry endorsed the idea within 24 hours of the report being published (along with every other recommendation they made). Bush waited a few days and has said he likes the idea but not as a cabinet position and is reviewing the other recommendations.
 
Interesting quote I found.


"After Dec. 7, 1941, American leaders mobilized a nation, built a military force of 15 million in uniform, fought and won a World War in four years, and then got on with business.

"After 9/11, American leaders sought safety and security in the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security from half a dozen dysfunctional smaller bureaucracies; the passage of national emergency laws that whittle away at individual rights and protections; and now the recommended creation of still another super-bureaucracy, a National Director of Intelligence."
 
Given Bush's ability to pick the best and the brightest - look at his current crop of underlings for proof - I think this is another excellent idea. Look at it this way, the ship of fools gets another Captain - what could be better?
 
The point is NOT to actually do something substantive. The point is to make the American people FEEL better. :rolleyes:
 
Here they go again screwing around with the bureaucracy and leaving policy untouched. We are in the mess we are in WRT intelligence because of policy dictated by congress and implement by presidents beginning with the Church Commission in the mid-70's.

What we see in the intel community today was exactly what we saw in the pentagon before Goldwater-Nichols Act. We need the same kind of legislation focusing on jointness. It will be necessary to put the legislation (change policy) into effect and then engage in selective termination with extreme prejudice of careers of people who don't toe the new line. Stepping over a body on the way to the parking lot has a tendency to focus the mind and reinforce priorities.

Changing the bureaucracy will do nothing.
 
An interesting piece of trivia - the Director of Central Intelligence has historically been a cabinet-level position, right up until the Clinton administration. Bush II hasn't reversed that particular mistake.

Silly and unnecessary idea.

- Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top