By ELISABETH BUMILLER
(yeah, I know, she usually writes puff pieces)
President Bush on Monday cast his support for a new post of national intelligence director as an historic overhaul of the nation's major spy agencies. But White House officials left vague the authority that the new director would wield over personnel and spending, raising doubts among some experts about the real power of the new position.
Mr. Bush said the new director would "coordinate" the budgets for the nation's 15 major intelligence agencies, while Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, said the director would have a "coordinating role" in hiring. But neither the president nor Mr. Card said that the director should directly hire and fire or have authority over the estimated $40 billion that the government spends each year on intelligence. Right now, the Pentagon controls about 80 percent of the money.
"If the national intelligence director has no real budgetary authority, he or she will have no real power," said Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, strongly praised Mr. Bush in a statement for proposing "wise changes" in the intelligence community. But Mr. Warner left unclear whether he supported giving the new intelligence director budgetary control, and said his committee would hold hearings on the matter in two weeks. The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks recommended that a national intelligence director should submit nominations to the president for people to run the intelligence agencies and also have ultimate control over spending.
The White House gave no indication on Monday of power struggles with the Pentagon, but Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made his views clear in testimony before the commission in March. Mr. Rumsfeld said then that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great disservice" by creating reliance on a single, centralized source of information.
more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/politics/03terror.html?hp