National Intelligence Director

[Bozo Erectus]

Why wont Bush make it a Cabinet position?

"if we'd made it a member of the Cabinet, I believe the administration would have been accused of politicizing it."

Ok thats pretty lame, what else ya got?

"The Cabinet is the political body responsible for implementing the president's policy and that's the very reason for not having this person in the Cabinet."

Yeah, thats the last thing you want when youre working putting together the Presidents anti terrorism policy, some annoying intelligence guy with information about terrorism.

I dont understand how Bush can constantly be telling the country that we're under threat of imminent attack, and at the same time, refuse to make the NID a Cabinet post. Which is true, that Bush is a brave war President, fighting the evil terrorists who are going to attack at any moment, or that terrorism isnt a serious enough matter to have the NID in the Cabinet?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20040803/ap_on_go_pr_wh/intelligence_reform

 

[cgannon64]

Well, if its a cabinet position, that means it gets chosen by every President right? As opposed to the current CIA leader, who gets chosen by...well who does he get chosen by?

I'm afraid it would get politicized, but then again, maybe the current position already is, I don't know enough about it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The NID should be a technocrat, not a politictian. I think he's better left outside of cabinet.

Related article by Israeli over-spook

 

[eyrei]

Maybe Bush is counting on losing the election...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

With whats going on in the world right now, which would you pick to be in the Cabinet, if you could choose only one, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the National Intelligence Director?

Another recomendation of the 9/11 commision that Bush dismissed out of hand was that the NID have a 10 year term that overlaps administrations, so there would be continuity in intelligence operations despite changes in administrations. Why reject such an obviously sensible recomendation?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Isn't that "obviously sensible" recomendation incompatible with the NID as a cabinet position?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Precisely because the NID is independant of politics, its important that he be in the Cabinet. At last one person at the Cabinet meetings would be dealing with facts and information and not politics.

Isn't that "obviously sensible" recomendation incompatible with the NID as a cabinet position?

No I dont think so. Its been customary for new Presidents to appoint their own cabinet members, but its not a requirement. There are plenty of high level officials (who do the real work) at these cabinet agencies who carry on through changes of administration and agency directors. The fight against terrorism is too important to start from scratch every four years with different players.

 

[cgannon64]

That 10 year thing doesn't really de-politicize it at all. Its like saying that the Supreme Court is de-politicized just because their careers span administrations. It doesn't matter, they reflect the politics of the guy who appointed them.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Precisely because the NID is independant of politics, its important that he be in the Cabinet. At last one person at the Cabinet meetings would be dealing with facts and information and not politics.

Forgive me for being a pessimist, but I'd expect the NID to be politicized by being in cabinet rather than remaining a "non-political" voice in it.

 

[Steph]

Is senator Kinsey applying for the job?

 

[IglooDame]

I am opposed to an NID on essentially the same grounds that I oppose the Department of Homeland Security - consolidation of power. Additionally, I think that the President will be deprived of different viewpoints if the intelligence gathering and analysis currently provided by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DoD end up all going through the same NID mouthpiece.

 

[PHSikes]

Well, if its a cabinet position, that means it gets chosen by every President right? As opposed to the current CIA leader, who gets chosen by...well who does he get chosen by?

I'm afraid it would get politicized, but then again, maybe the current position already is, I don't know enough about it.

The Director of the CIA get chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It is already political, but it would be even moreso at the cabinet level.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

That 10 year thing doesn't really de-politicize it at all. Its like saying that the Supreme Court is de-politicized just because their careers span administrations. It doesn't matter, they reflect the politics of the guy who appointed them.

CG, why are we wasting time talking about the dangers of politicizing the NID? Answer: because Bush raised the issue as a straw man. Its just a dumb argument to make. So what he's saying is that the Cabinet is a cesspool of politics that would corrupt the NID. Nothing regarding national security is discussed at Cabinet meetings, they only talk about politics. Oh come on In the run up to the war in Iraq, wouldnt a cabinet level, independent intelligence official have been useful to the President?

 

[The Last Conformist]

He'd most likely have said that Iraq probably had WMDs, so I don't see what difference it would have made.

 

[cgannon64]

I'm pretty sure Bush got all his information on Iraq from a daily CIA briefing. Of course, the content of those is what's causing this issue to be raised. But that's either the CIA's fault, or Saddam's fault for not having WMDs.

 

[The Last Conformist]

'Xcept making people like me less prone to trust the CIA.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But that's either the CIA's fault, or Saddam's fault for not having WMDs.

I've never thought of it that way before!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Forgive me for being a pessimist, but I'd expect the NID to be politicized by being in cabinet rather than remaining a "non-political" voice in it.

Ok explain to me how he would be politicized if he isnt even necessarily appointed by the current president. A NID with a ten year position wouldnt have to kowtow to a particular president. He would be free to tell him the truth, rather than what he wants to hear.

I am opposed to an NID on essentially the same grounds that I oppose the Department of Homeland Security - consolidation of power. Additionally, I think that the President will be deprived of different viewpoints if the intelligence gathering and analysis currently provided by the CIA, FBI, NSA, and DoD end up all going through the same NID mouthpiece.

I dont think so, the president would remain free to meet with the directors of the CIA, FBI, etc whenever he wants. You bring up the DHS, Ive been wondering where it fits into all this. Now theyre going to create a 'National Conterterrorism Center' too. What the hell? So now since 9/11, instead of consolidating our intelligence efforts, we've created two new massive intelligence bureaucracies

 

[IglooDame]

I dont think so, the president would remain free to meet with the directors of the CIA, FBI, etc whenever he wants. You bring up the DHS, Ive been wondering where it fits into all this. Now theyre going to create a 'National Conterterrorism Center' too. What the hell? So now since 9/11, instead of consolidating our intelligence efforts, we've created two new massive intelligence bureaucracies

I also wonder what an NID would do to the National Security Advisor's job description.

But yeah, two huge bureaucracies where there used to be several medium-sized ones - ain't it great how government works? :shakehead

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ok explain to me how he would be politicized if he isnt even necessarily appointed by the current president. A NID with a ten year position wouldnt have to kowtow to a particular president. He would be free to tell him the truth, rather than what he wants to hear.

I believe the concept of "group think" has being invoked repeatedly in the American deabte on this.