Intelligence Czar? Bad Idea!
By Tom Barrett (07/20/04)
One of the results of the 9-11 Commission has been a wave of speculation over whether America needs an "Intelligence Czar." This should not surprise us. Congress always responds to problems, either real or perceived, by either throwing more of our money at the problem, or by adding another layer of bureaucracy.
The cries for another "Czar" stem from the supposed failures of the intelligence community leading up to 9-11. (Ever notice that whenever the Democrats want to create another super agency they use a Russian word to describe the new position?) Having reviewed all the evidence available to the public, I seriously doubt that having another boss to boss around the bosses of our twenty-five US intelligence agencies will solve anything. But that's their answer.
Before we look at a sensible answer to this question, let's look at a few of the clear conclusions of the 9-11 Commission. The most important of these is that the President absolutely did not try in any way to influence the intelligence reports from the CIA and others, nor did he attempt to change the conclusions the intelligence professionals reached. Of course, as far as John Kerry and his Gang of Democrats are concerned, this fact will fall into the category of "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts!"
They will continue to lie to the American people, ignoring the conclusions of the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission. They will continue to say that President Bush coerced the CIA to trump up evidence to support his ambitions of starting a war with Iraq. But the verdict is in, my friends. They can lie as much as they want, but they can't change the facts.
By the way, they have never explained exactly what Bush's motivation would have been to do such a thing. Their first lie was that he wanted Iraq's oil. When it became clear that it would be years before Iraq could produce enough oil just to cover their debts, they came up with a new lie. George Bush wanted to take our nation to war to avenge his father's honor. This pathetic attempt deserves no comment. Then their story was that he did it for popularity. Considering all the grief he has suffered for doing the right thing, this lie is even more stupid than the others.
The bottom line is that Bush had no reason to manipulate the intelligence that led us into the Iraq War, and he did not do so.
Another clear conclusion is that we acted on the same intelligence that was being produced by the intelligence services of our allies. If we were fooled, so was everyone else. The Democrats widely publicized former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's lies that he had proof that Iraq was not trying to buy yellow cake uranium from African nations to produce nuclear weapons. They said this proved that Bush lied during the State of the Union Address. But Great Britain's investigation into the same intelligence issues reviewed by the 9-11 Commission concluded that Wilson was lying, and that Iraq had definitely tried to buy uranium.
Let me remind you that U.S. and foreign intelligence services had concluded during the Clinton administration that Iraq was desperately seeking both material and technology to create nuclear bombs, and that they would achieve their goal in a matter of years (some said within one year). According to an article by Kenneth Pollack in Atlantic monthly (link below) Pollack described a meeting in 2002 of intelligence analysts and twenty former UN weapons inspectors. A senior official asked if anyone in the room doubted that Iraq was operating a secret centrifuge plant (a device essential to the production of nuclear weapons). No one did. Pollack, referring to the national intelligence services of our allies, stated in the article, "In sum, NO ONE doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."
It was the Clinton administration that made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy based on these U.S. and foreign intelligence estimates. Bush simply followed up on this already established policy of the U.S. Government. How did the Democrats think Clinton planned to effect a regime change? Did they think we should ask Saddam nicely to retire? No, they and Clinton, as well as the rest of the thinking world knew exactly what regime change meant: the forcible removal of Hussein by the use of arms.
Don't forget that Clinton instituted preemptive strikes against Iraq several times, or that he tried to convince the nation to go to war against Saddam in 1998. And don't forget that John Kerry, John Edwards and the rest of the liberal gang were behind him all the way. So how is it that regime change and preemptive strikes based on the same evidence was great when Clinton was in charge, but the same plan became a criminal act once Bush was in charge? Could it be politics? Could it be that the Democrats will stoop to any depth to defeat President Bush, even if it endangers our national security? I think we all know the answer to that question.
There are definitely problems in our security services. John Kerry's answer is to politicize an important national issue for his personal gain. He called this week for a doubling of the number of covert CIA agents involved in "humint" (Human Intelligence). Does he think Americans have such short memories that we will forget that he and his fellow Democrats voted time and again to slash intelligence budgets for humint and replace them with less expensive - and less effective - electronic gimmicks? Unfortunately he is right - many Americans, particularly those of his own party, have short memories when it comes to the sins of John Kerry.
But according to John McLaughlin, the CIA was in "Chapter Eleven" (bankruptcy) in terms of human intelligence services on Clinton's watch. McLaughlin should know - he was the Deputy Director of the CIA for Intelligence at the time. Without funding he couldn't train the agents who actually infiltrate terrorist organizations, something Clinton's electronic toys couldn't do. In fact, he said that at that time the Agency could only afford to train twelve such agents per year due to the Democrats' budget cuts. Under Bush, hundreds are currently in training.
Under Clinton, there were only 300 agents in total among all of our intelligence services involved in counter-terrorism. It has often been said that Clinton and the Democrats spent many more millions persecuting Bill Gates, who helped bring prosperity to millions of Americans, than he spent to find Osama bin Laden, who we knew was plotting to destroy our nation. Today the main focus of the intelligence community is the defeat of terrorism worldwide, as it should have been during the eight years Clinton lounged in the White House.
While the 9-11 Commission states that a direct link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda cannot be proven, neither can it be disproven. According to the CIA, abundant evidence exists of meetings between top Iraqi intelligence officials and al Qaeda leaders, training provided by Iraq to al Qaeda, and safe haven given by Iraq to their operatives who planned terrorist attacks from their bases on Iraqi soil. And of course there is the incontrovertible evidence of Saddam's financial support of terrorists.
Finally, a Boston Globe article (see link below) makes it clear that the Commission's findings debunk the claims of the Democrats and their lapdogs in the liberal press that the Commission puts the blame for 9-11 on President Bush. Here are two interesting quotes:
"Yet the commission has released documents showing that the practical steps Bush planned to take during the early years of his presidency imitated much of Clinton's unsuccessful strategy of negotiating with the Taliban."
But Bush soon devised his own strategy: "Scores of previously classified documents and e-mails the commission has already disclosed show, for example, that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was correct when she argued in public hearings this spring that unlike Clinton, Bush adopted a policy early in 2001 that explicitly sought to eliminate Al Qaeda."
Note that the Commission states that "in early 2001" - long before the 9-11 attacks - Bush changed our national strategy from Clinton's passive approach of negotiating with terrorists to an aggressive stance of hunting down and eliminating al Qaeda.
Now, as to the Commission suggestion that an Intelligence Czar be given authority over all of our intelligence agencies, I think there is a more excellent way of handling the confusing mish-mash of twenty-five intelligence agencies and their collective $40 Billion annual budgets. We should get rid of most of them.
Much of what these agencies do is duplicated by other agencies, which is one reason for their bloated budgets. The Commission proposal, which is being pushed on the campaign trail by John Kerry, reminds me of when Jimmy Carter became Governor of Georgia. He promised to reduce state government. And he did so, going from eighty state agencies to fifteen, accompanied by much bragging. What he failed to mention was that he simply reorganized Georgia's government agencies so that the eighty agencies were placed under the control of fifteen super agencies. He also forgot to mention that the state budget increased by almost fifty per scent on his watch, because he didn't really eliminate a single agency; he just shuffled them around.
If asked to list the intelligence agencies of our country, most Americans would name the CIA and the FBI. There are actually twenty-five - that we know of. The Intelligence website listed below speaks of "…the surprising number of agencies involved in intelligence work."
We don't need most of these intelligence agencies. For instance, why does the State Department need their own intelligence service? The CIA is charged with international intelligence, and already collects the same information the State Department's service does. And why does every branch of the armed forces need an intelligence service? Why not combine them? When I was in the Marine Corps I was offered a position in Naval Intelligence. At the time (I was 19) I thought that was cool. Now, after paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, I wonder just how necessary it is for our country to have all these agencies.
Once we eliminate the waste and duplication of effort involved with having all these agencies competing with one another over which can spy better, we might revisit this issue. Perhaps a Cabinet level Intelligence Chief might be in order. But the way things are presently constituted it would take such a person several years just to comprehend the jobs of all these agencies and how they interact with one another.
We don't need more bureaucracy in the intelligence community. As in almost every other area of government, we need more efficiency.
Let me close with this thought. When things are going well, America appreciates their warriors. But when things don't go so well, we turn on them. A case in point is the Viet Nam war. Our returning soldiers were ridiculed and humiliated by John Kerry and his liberal buddies. Some never recovered emotionally. Many committed suicide.
As the acting Director of the CIA reminded America today, our intelligence services have to get it right a thousand times. The terrorists only have to get it right once. The CIA made some mistakes. But the warriors in the CIA are being trashed right now by the Democrats in the hope that hurting them will hurt Bush and put a two-faced coward in the White House. And that is not fair. McLaughlin is right when he calls these officers "…dedicated professionals who risk their lives for America every day in every part of the world." Remember that and pray for them, rather than joining the liberal lynch mob.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
