Do you agree with the reports about creating a National Intelligence Czar?

[neoteric lefty]

Poll question: Do you agree with the reports about creating a National Intelligence Czar?

Reports are coming out this week about the upcoming 9/11 commission report. One of the recommendations mentioned is a cabinet-level position that will oversee all 16 federal intelligence agencies with power over all of them. Do you agree with this recommendation?

Poll result (14 votes)
Yes, roles in our intelligence families need to be shaken up.	(1 votes, 7%)	Vote
No, not someone with absolute power, but more power than Homeland Security Director.	(3 votes, 21%)	Vote
Absolutely not, the worst thing we can do is create a larger buearacracy in charge of intelligence.	(10 votes, 71%)	Vote

[punpirate]

1. Everyone please recall...

... that the reason given for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was to provide a central clearinghouse for information and intelligence, a place where useful information could be directed. Presumably, the cabinet level officer of that department should be in charge of directing this process.

Bad enough. Establishing a cabinet-level officer for intelligence simply puts that secretary directly at the table where policy is determined (or handed down from on high), with predictable results--policy directs intelligence, instead of intelligence guiding policy.

Cheers.

[neoteric lefty]

2. good point n/t

[Solly Mack]

3. "Intelligence Czar"...sounds too creepy

but hey! put a snazzy name to it and people will embrace it like it was fresh apple pie!


I voted no...

the more "offices" we create the more levels of "I don't recall" we're going to hear

[Katarina]

4. If it has anything to do with this administration

Intelligence wouldn't fit in, so absolutely not.

[leesa]

5. The intelligence is not the problem in 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran

The problem is that the neocons wanted 9-11, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. This is all just smoke to hide the REAL problem. Treason within our government.

[Donkeyboy75]

6. No way. Just more people pointing fingers at each other. n/t

[moondust]

7. Hire more translators and analysts.

The problem seems to be the overwhelming work load and untimely reporting. Another bureaucrat and administrative staff won't do anything to help that.

On the other hand, I suppose the main reason some want this is to organize the budgeting for all these agencies which is now done without adequate coordination and oversight. Probably too much for the CIA director.

I dunno.

Edit: Voted no. Not a good idea. At cabinet level he/she would be "on the President's team" rather than a relatively independent source of intelligence in the service of country. Imagine if Nixon had had one down the hall to manipulate in his coverup! Also could too easily turn into the President's private SS or KGB conducting political "missions", etc. Danger to civil and human rights as well. Bad, bad, bad.