|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Experts Differ on Creating Intelligence Czar By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — Two U.S. intelligence experts yesterday differed on the merits of creating a national director of intelligence (see GSN, July 20). During a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on intelligence reform, former U.S. National Security Agency Director William Odom spoke in favor of the proposal, saying the position was the “precondition” for other intelligence reforms. Former Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre countered that it would stifle necessary competition among U.S. intelligence agencies. Renewed calls for the intelligence director were prompted by the release this month of the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence inquiry that was heavily critical of the intelligence community’s performance regarding prewar Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts. Following the release of the committee’s report, a group of senators led by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would establish a position, separate from the CIA director, with authority over intelligence collection priorities and intelligence community resources. In addition, the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks is expected to include support for the position in a report of its findings set to be released tomorrow. There appears to be some debate within the Bush administration over the merits of the proposal. Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has publicly spoken out against the recommendation several times, saying that the CIA director already fills such a role and that the proposal would add needless bureaucratic layers to the intelligence community. Following McLaughlin’s comments Sunday, though, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday that the acting CIA director was not speaking for President George W. Bush. In his prepared testimony before the Senate intelligence panel yesterday, Odom said he supported Feinstein’s legislation, but added that the bill does not outline how a national intelligence director would relate to the defense secretary and the various regional military commands. Unless that interaction is better clarified, he said, the proposal could lose the support of the Defense Department, which currently oversees several intelligence agencies. Odom also said that a director should be required to conduct a structural review of the intelligence community every five years to help incorporate technological changes. In his prepared testimony, however, former Deputy Defense Secretary Hamre said that a national director would not reduce “group-think” within the intelligence community. “I fear bringing it all under one chief would seriously threaten what little competition for ideas we have,” Hamre said in his prepared testimony. Instead, more needs to be done to improve the “demand” for intelligence, such as through improved congressional oversight of the intelligence community, according to Hamre. In addition, both he and Odom said that policy-makers need to do more to question and fully understand various intelligence assessments. During a separate press conference yesterday, Representative Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) defended Congress’ oversight of the intelligence community since the Sept. 11 attacks. “Clearly, everything can always be better, but we need to view this … in the context of the world that we live in, and the two sides of that world as it relates to terrorism are before 9/11 and after 9/11, and we all look at things in a much different way now,” Blunt said. Blunt made his remarks following a briefing of the Republican leadership of House of Representatives by the chairman and vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
