Here is the hot topic of conversation in washington.

-THE BILL- (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727156/)

what is everyone's perspective on it?


Read and discuss...

Why don't everybody state an opinion at once?:rolleyes:

Why don't you just wait, and if anybody is going to post they will.

I personally don't understand what kind of comments you're looking for, but I have nothing to say about it.

From the bill itself:

The bill will establish a Director of National Intelligence in charge of all of the government's intelligence gathering, analysis and counterterrorism operations. It would streamline and unify our intelligence-gathering capabilities, foster greater intelligence
sharing, and end the senseless turf battles that plague the current system and that so failed our country on that fateful day.

It all looks good on paper. Where's the bill go to? Can't be the taxpayer, Bush has cut taxes and given rebates.

Also, they'll need to tread carefully, since there is no precedent for an "Intelligence Czar." Personally, I doubt they can pull it off. "Streamlining and unifying our intelligence-gathering capabilities," but if they do, more power to them.

Well I think "military intelligence" is an Oxymoron, and the "overhaul" needed is in Dublya's head.

IMO it's a way for policymakers to show they've 'done something' to improve national security without admitting responsibility for failures in national security policy. It keeps attention on the intelligence community, rather than policy makers. As George Tenet said, the NID is another 'box on a linechart.'

Nevertheless, any efforts to improve interagency coordination within the intelligence community are welcome. If the individual agencies can get over antiquated concepts of 'turf' the NID may actually improve things. Hopefully by eradicating ideas of 'turf.'

Originally posted by Wilhuf
IMO it's a way for policymakers to show they've 'done something' to improve national security without admitting responsibility for failures in national security policy. It keeps attention on the intelligence community, rather than policy makers. As George Tenet said, the NID is another 'box on a linechart.'

I'm with him.

In the UK they have set up Tzars (odd choice of title?) for everything, and as far as everyone can tell they have had little effect, excpet to be a figurehead to take the flak off the government when nothing changes much.

I may be wrong, but weren't the FBI and CIA etc... SPECIFICALLY set up as different organisations with different remits and different areas of operation for a good reason?

I think its a political stunt, and if it is more than that then it is a worrying consolidation of a lot of power in a few hands.