Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

Gypsy · 11-22-2004, 20:40

An interesting commentary on this...

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gbi.../gb_1122.shtml

Getting Intelligence Reform Right
By Gregg Bish
November 22, 2004

The Associated Press reported Sunday, November 21, "In a defeat for President Bush, rebellious House Republicans on Saturday derailed legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the September 11 commission." The vote wasn't a defeat for the president; it was a defeat for the Democrats. It was a Democratic campaign posture to demand that the House should adopt the Sept. 11 Commission report in its entirety. The Bush Administration has said from the beginning that they would review the entire report, and work with Congress to craft a "good bill". If anything, the defeat is in Nancy Pelosi's column, and doesn't mean much anyway. AP hasn't learned a thing about accurate reporting following the election.

The bill got snagged over concerns that it moved too much intelligence capability control away from the Pentagon, an issue from the beginning of the legislative process. Pentagon war planners are concerned that the loss of control will reduce their ability to identify threats and to protect their troops. One could support that, it's the troops that are in the front lines taking live fire every day. It's the opponents obsessed with having an "intelligence czar" that are in a froth.

This notion of an "intelligence czar" should be looked on with suspicion. Our friends in the Soviet Union used to have such an agency, called the KGB. It was notably one of the first organs of the Russian government to be reformed following the fall of the Soviet state. The Politburo couldn't control the KGB. The GRU couldn't control or challenge the KGB. It had become, over time, a force of nature that God himself couldn't control. The head of the KGB wielded more power in the Soviet Union, with greater discretion, than even the party leadership. In a nation concerned with terror and obsessed with worry, a desire to have a "politics-proof" intelligence organ might seem desirable, but the reality is that such an organ is dangerous. Power corrupts. Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately.

The concerns of dissenters in this process should be heard. Their worries should be given credence, and fairly reviewed. There should not be a headlong rush to craft a politically popular bill to fit the artificial constraints of a calendar. Rather, an appropriate amount of time should be spent to craft the best bill possible. This is, after all, the first major overhaul of our intelligence structures in a very long time. It is at least as important for this effort to be "right", as it is to deliver a bill before the changing Congress moves the power to shape it out of reach of the Democrats.

That is, after all, the concern driving the hoop-la.

With Republican gains in the House and Senate, the ability of the Democratic Party to influence the shape of this bill is diminished. The ability of the minority party to exercise the public to protect its interests is reduced. The drive to complete this bill now, before the freshman class is sworn, is based in politics, not in necessity.

Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Congressional leadership should take the time to do this "right". It can be hard, in Washington, to be an honest arbiter of the public good, but in this case, doing it "right" should, and may, take precedence over doing "what's popular". "Popular" doesn't protect the public. "Right" protects the public.

According to some news reports, the crafting of this legislation has taken a scant three months. By comparison, the president's proposed Energy Bill has been on the table for debate for three years. While Democrats criticized the administration for a "rush to war" in Iraq, it appears that they are willing to rush equally to push an intelligence bill through the legislature, whether it gets it "right", or not.

They just can't seem to get it right. Political posturing didn't win them an election. It didn't gain them power. It didn't advance their purposes. What possible gain do they hope to accomplish by rushing through a potentially flawed intelligence bill, other than to create a minefield of flaws to be used later against the Administration?

As important as this issue is, it deserves the time required for a second, and even a third, look.

11-22-2004, 20:40	#3
Gypsy Area Commander Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Midwest Posts: 7,133	An interesting commentary on this... http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gbi.../gb_1122.shtml Getting Intelligence Reform Right By Gregg Bish November 22, 2004 The Associated Press reported Sunday, November 21, "In a defeat for President Bush, rebellious House Republicans on Saturday derailed legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the September 11 commission." The vote wasn't a defeat for the president; it was a defeat for the Democrats. It was a Democratic campaign posture to demand that the House should adopt the Sept. 11 Commission report in its entirety. The Bush Administration has said from the beginning that they would review the entire report, and work with Congress to craft a "good bill". If anything, the defeat is in Nancy Pelosi's column, and doesn't mean much anyway. AP hasn't learned a thing about accurate reporting following the election. The bill got snagged over concerns that it moved too much intelligence capability control away from the Pentagon, an issue from the beginning of the legislative process. Pentagon war planners are concerned that the loss of control will reduce their ability to identify threats and to protect their troops. One could support that, it's the troops that are in the front lines taking live fire every day. It's the opponents obsessed with having an "intelligence czar" that are in a froth. This notion of an "intelligence czar" should be looked on with suspicion. Our friends in the Soviet Union used to have such an agency, called the KGB. It was notably one of the first organs of the Russian government to be reformed following the fall of the Soviet state. The Politburo couldn't control the KGB. The GRU couldn't control or challenge the KGB. It had become, over time, a force of nature that God himself couldn't control. The head of the KGB wielded more power in the Soviet Union, with greater discretion, than even the party leadership. In a nation concerned with terror and obsessed with worry, a desire to have a "politics-proof" intelligence organ might seem desirable, but the reality is that such an organ is dangerous. Power corrupts. Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately. The concerns of dissenters in this process should be heard. Their worries should be given credence, and fairly reviewed. There should not be a headlong rush to craft a politically popular bill to fit the artificial constraints of a calendar. Rather, an appropriate amount of time should be spent to craft the best bill possible. This is, after all, the first major overhaul of our intelligence structures in a very long time. It is at least as important for this effort to be "right", as it is to deliver a bill before the changing Congress moves the power to shape it out of reach of the Democrats. That is, after all, the concern driving the hoop-la. With Republican gains in the House and Senate, the ability of the Democratic Party to influence the shape of this bill is diminished. The ability of the minority party to exercise the public to protect its interests is reduced. The drive to complete this bill now, before the freshman class is sworn, is based in politics, not in necessity. Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Congressional leadership should take the time to do this "right". It can be hard, in Washington, to be an honest arbiter of the public good, but in this case, doing it "right" should, and may, take precedence over doing "what's popular". "Popular" doesn't protect the public. "Right" protects the public. According to some news reports, the crafting of this legislation has taken a scant three months. By comparison, the president's proposed Energy Bill has been on the table for debate for three years. While Democrats criticized the administration for a "rush to war" in Iraq, it appears that they are willing to rush equally to push an intelligence bill through the legislature, whether it gets it "right", or not. They just can't seem to get it right. Political posturing didn't win them an election. It didn't gain them power. It didn't advance their purposes. What possible gain do they hope to accomplish by rushing through a potentially flawed intelligence bill, other than to create a minefield of flaws to be used later against the Administration? As important as this issue is, it deserves the time required for a second, and even a third, look. __________________ My Heroes wear camouflage.
Gypsy is offline