kipperthefrog Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Here is the hot topic of conversation in washington. -THE BILL- what is everyone's perspective on it? Read and discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 Why don't everybody state an opinion at once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 From the bill itself: [align=right]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.[/align] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_hill987 Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Well I think "military intelligence" is an Oxymoron, and the "overhaul" needed is in Dublya's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhuf Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 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.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.