Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

CIA acting director opposes a national intelligence chief

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 03:17 AM
Original message
CIA acting director opposes a national intelligence chief
CIA acting director opposes a national intelligence chief

By Jennifer C. Kerr
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Rejecting a recommendation expected this week from the Sept. 11 commission, the CIA's acting director said yesterday that a new national intelligence chief is unnecessary and that intelligence agencies have made changes since the 2001 attacks to better protect the country.

John McLaughlin said "a good argument can be made" for a Cabinet-level position to oversee the nation's 15 intelligence agencies and control their budgets.

But, he added, "It doesn't relate particularly to the world I live in. I see the director of Central Intelligence as someone who is able to do that and is empowered to do so under the National Security Act of 1947."


But two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sens. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. disputed McLaughlin's view.

"When you take a look at how important intelligence must be for our future, you realize that the current situation is untenable," Durbin said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Chambliss also called for a permanent CIA director to be chosen soon.

"We need to go ahead and have a new CIA director," he said. "If John (McLaughlin) is going to be the permanent director, then fine, let's move in that direction. But if we're going elsewhere, I think we just need to get it done."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. Know Why They Don't Like This Idea?
I'm willing to bet money it's because the CIA would be ripped out of the hands of the BFEE and their hangers-on, subject to public oversight and accountability.

The apologists for the intelligence services conveniently overlook the amount of contamination of the information.

We have TWO massive failures of intelligence:

9/11 in which nobody was looking, because they were told not to explicitly, and

Iraq in which everybody was looking at a dog and pony show that was pure fabrication, and justified by failure #1.

So we had best put the leash on Bush, and tell him he has no more chances to create failure #3, Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. The only "two massive failures of intelligence" that I've seen in the....
...last four years has been FratBoy and "Big-time" Dick. The only way that anyone could possibly believe that our intelligence agencies failed us is if they believe the information being reported by the captive mainstream media as fed to it by the NeoCons.

Intelligence is only as good as the people willing to listen to what they're being told, and then be willing to ACT on that information.

In response to your "TWO massive failures of intelligence", I offer the following:

1. While I agree with you that 911 was LIHOP/MIHOP, I don't agree that the CIA is to blame. Richard Clarke tells us in his book that Tenet was beside himself with worry about an impending terrorist attack in the months leading up to 911. Tenet personally, and repeatedly, warned the NeoCons-in-Charge to no avail.

2. In regards to Iraq, look no farther than the newly-created, Pentagon-based, NeoCon OSP, the so-called "intelligence organization" that took the incoming intelligence from the CIA and other agencies and tailored that information to justify the invasion of Iraq. The CIA and Tenet had strongly advised FratBoy not to use any mention of Iraqi WMDs in his State of the Union address, because that charge could not be substantiated by CIA analysts. Additionally, the CIA and Tenet strongly advised Powell not to use any mention of Iraqi WMDs in his speech to the UN, because again, that charge could not be substantiated by CIA analysts.

In regards to your comments about a National Intelligence Chief, the NeoCons desperately WANT such a person reporting at the cabinet level. Once that person was installed, the NeoCons would truly have control of the nation's intelligence-gathering activities, and HOW that data would be reported to the American people. Any dissent from the NeoCon line of thinking would be controlled and buried at the lower levels of such a monolithic organization. Additionally, we ALREADY have a Director of Central Intelligence who acts as head of the U. S. intelligence community:

< >

Director of Central Intelligence Directive 1/1
The Authorities and Responsibilities of
the Director of Central Intelligence
as Head of the U.S. Intelligence Community
(Effective 19 November 1998)


"(1) The Director of Central Intelligence serves as head of the United States Intelligence Community; acts as the principal advisor to the President for intelligence matters related to the national security; and serves as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. (NSA 102(a); 50 USC 403(a); see also, E.O. 12333, 1.5(a).)

(2) To the extent recommended by the National Security Council and approved by the President, the DCI shall have access to all intelligence related to the national security which is collected by any department, agency or other entity of the United States. (NSA 104(a); 50 USC 403-4(a).)

(3) The heads of all Executive Branch departments and agencies shall, in accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General, give the DCI access to all information relevant to the national intelligence needs of the United States, and shall give due consideration to requests from the Director for appropriate support for Intelligence Community activities. (E.O. 12333, 1.6(a).)"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. What we need is a President who can do the job.
With the help of his or her National Security Advisor. The Attorney General, over the FBI, also has a role to play.

We've seen what can happen when all three offices are filled with incompetents and/or criminals: 9/11 & the invasion of Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TeeYiYi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick
TYY :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-19-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. We should tell him that we are THE PEOPLE and therefore have
not relinquished OUR POWER over all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Aug 22nd 2017, 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC