|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Experts Cool on Bush’s Intelligence Reform Orders By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — Intelligence experts were skeptical last week over the value of a recent set of executive orders issued by President George W. Bush for intelligence reform, saying the move may be intended more as a political gesture (see GSN, Aug. 27). In one of the executive orders, the White House increased the authority of the director of central intelligence to serve as an acting national intelligence director until such a position was created through legislative action. Under the order, the director of central intelligence will be responsible for determining intelligence collection priorities, helping developing the National Foreign Intelligence Program budget and recommending nominations for the leadership of various intelligence agencies. In two other executive orders, Bush created a national counterterrorism center, to be headed by the director of central intelligence until a national intelligence director is in place, and called for increased information sharing among federal agencies on terrorism matters. The creation of a national intelligence director and a national counterterrorism center — two of the key intelligence reform recommendations put forth by the Sept. 11 commission this summer — have been the subject of a number of a congressional hearings held during Congress’ summer recess. The Sept. 11 commission proposed the creation of a national intelligence director, separate from the CIA, with full budgetary and personnel authority over the various intelligence agencies. While the White House initially resisted giving the new director that much power, there have been signs that the Bush administration may be shifting its position. Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the CATO Institute, described the executive orders as “largely window dressing” and said that the White House was under “tremendous pressure” to respond to the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations. “The administration can’t be seen as doing nothing,” Pena said. The White House said in an Aug. 27 fact sheet that the executive orders “strain the limits” of presidential authority to strengthen the authority of the director of central intelligence without legislative action. “I think one of the most important things is the signal it sends to the [intelligence] community about the president’s expectations in terms of the DCI’s [director of central intelligence] day-to-day role in managing and marshalling the assets of the community,” a senior administration official said during an Aug. 27 background briefing. The official also said that the planned national intelligence director would probably receive even more budgetary and personnel authority once legislation is completed by Congress. “By no means does this preclude us giving more power to the NID; in fact, I think … that’s where we’re moving toward,” the senior administration official said. “I think this is further evidence of the president’s commitment that the national intelligence director is going to have all the authority they need to do the job that they need to do.” Several U.S. senators, along with the chairman and vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, are expected to announce today the introduction of legislation to implement the commission’s recommendations. Pena and other intelligence experts were cool last week to the White House’s efforts to strengthen the authority of the director of central intelligence. The executive orders are just “campaign politics,” said John Pike, executive director of the GlobalSecurity.org think tank. “The White House is slowly, slowly twisting in the wind on this,” he said of intelligence reform. Noting the creation of the Homeland Security Department, which the Bush administration first opposed and then supported, Pena said that last week’s executive orders could represent an attempt by the White House to gain greater control over the issue of intelligence reform. “They’re staking out the lines they want drawn around this,” Pena said, referring to the planned national intelligence director. James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation called the orders a “positive” step. He also said, though, that Bush should have separated the director of central intelligence from overseeing the CIA. That would have given Congress someone with experience to work with in drafting legislation for a national intelligence director and allowed that person to focus on developing the new position rather than leading the CIA, Carafano said. During the Aug. 27 briefing, the senior administration official said the White House’s “clear stated, unequivocal intention” is to separate the national intelligence director from the director of the CIA. Doubting that Congress could approve intelligence reform legislation prior to the November presidential election, Pike said that an opportunity for “real” reform could come in March of next year, when the presidential commission investigating prewar intelligence on Iraq’s alleged WMD efforts is set to release its report. That report, Pike said, could provide an opportunity to “do something actually serious, rather than come up with sound bites for the chat shows.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
