Democrats slam Bush on security, seek intelligence 'czar'

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrats accused the White House of "flat-out lies" in making its case for war in Iraq (news - web sites), part of presidential challenger John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign shift to high-caliber attacks on incumbent Republican President George W. Bush (news - web sites).



In coordinated attacks on what they described as a failed White House security policy, Kerry's top lieutenants criticized Bush for "massive" failures in safeguarding the US homeland since the September 11, 2001 attacks, just days before an independent probe was to call for a top-to-bottom revamp of US intelligence.


Former US Senator Max Cleland, in a conference call to reporters with Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe, dismissed the Bush administration's arguments that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda terrorists, saying Congress and the US public was "flat-out lied to."


And during a separate telephone conference call, two top Democrats in Congress said intelligence lapses highlighted in the report to be released Thursday by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States underscore the need for a change in leadership at the White House.

~snip~
more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&nc...

[qb]

1. I'd settle for an intelligent czar. nt

[emulatorloo]

2. Go Vote on this story - AVG rating is 1.9 right now. . .very low

it is being freeped

[mctrotter5]

4. Voted..must be hit by freeps..way low.

[mctrotter5]

3. MiGawd, could it be that our Demos are able to come out swinging!

[HereSince1628]

5. No Czar needed there is already a committee to do this job

No offense to all my democratic friends who want to push forward the obvious mistakes of the Bush Administration...

But, since the mid 1900's there has been a national security council that is supposed to function in this role.

Condi is a perfectly good bad example of someone leading the President's national security council, but that doesn't make a czar the answer. Reducing viewpoints, complexity, and redundancy is probably not a really great idea when it comes to trying to consider all perspectives in order to figure out what is known only in pieces.

I don't have a problem with maintaining 3-4 "intelligence" organizations. I can imagine at least that many special roles for domestic, traditional military, international political and international economic intelligence needs. Having a "czar" to coordinate things isn't going to make any of those 4 project areas perform better. And having a czar IS going to force one point of view... In the sense of the need for checks and balances I'd rather have multiple roles and different assigned responsibilities which must be reconciled by a team of knowledgeable and competent advisors who are willing to speak to all branches of government.

Obviously that leaves a lot of room for advisory misadventures.

[DrBB]

7. Exactly--it's a meaningless substitute for an actual policy

One of those "We must be SEEN to be doing something" ideas. If the position of "Intelligence Czar" ends up being as effective as the Education Czar, or god forbid the Drug Czar, we're all doomed.

On edit: I don't have a problem with maintaining 3-4 "intelligence" organizations.

Which is what the Brits have. The US on t'other hand, has vastly more of 'em. The number 15 seems to be stuck in my head for this, but it might be some even more ridiculous number like 35 or something....

[proud patriot]

6. Rated it n/t

[Rebellious Republican]

8. Its current average rating is 2.24 with 140 vote N/T

[Meldread]

9. A talking point!

Yay! It seems we've found a talking point. Now if only other Democrats jump on the bandwagon, repeat after me: "Bush flat-out lied to take us to war with Iraq."

Terry, it seems you do have a backbone after all.

[Zorra]

10. The last 2 heads of the Intelligence Oversight Committee, republicans

Richard Shelby and Pat Roberts, were complete failures.

Shelby fought tooth and nail to make sure that President Clinton's nominee for CIA Director, Tony Lake, was not nominated. Shelby and his committee then easily confirmed George Tenet as CIA Director.

Republicans obviously cannot be trusted with overseeing Intelligence. And, as we can plainly see by what has happened on 9/11 and in Iraq, they cannot be trusted in matters of defense and national security.