NYTimes on National Intel Director
The NY Times clearly shows that President Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in this OpEd piece. Out of the gate the paper offers that Americans
"need strong leadership and bold action".Sure, any nation at war needs leadership and a willingness to take bold action. But the opening follows that President Bush offered
"tired nostrums and bureaucratic half-measures".As I've stated, I'm no fan of the National Intelligence Director, as described by the 9/11 Commission or President Bush's plan, what I am a fan of is intellectual honesty. The former "paper of record" has fallen and it's editorial page is leading the way, banner held high.
President Bush modified the plan, as is his prerogative, in order to increase the chance of getting it through Congress, funding the office, and most importantly, putting the NID in a position to have a positive working relationship with the many, apparently ego-centric, intelligence bureaus. The President, thusly, lightened the tenor of the office and its "command" function.
The paper suggest that the NID is purely a political play, and states that Secretary Rumsfeld's prints are all over it. I would grant that the politics of the position had to be considered, after all 50 years of the CIA carrying the mantel of intel isn't quickly going to be forgotten. The credibility of the position is not based on being cabinet or not, executive office or not, the positions credibility will come through the selection of its leadership and their effectiveness.
Enough of that... the paper goes on to state that President Bush:
"went beyond the 9/11 panel in one way by proposing a post to coordinate intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. That sounds like a bad idea, especially with the administration's record of fanciful interpretations of that intelligence on Iraq."So he does more than the commission suggests, and he's damned. He does less and he's damned.
It can be argued that President Bush, Congress and for that matter the American people have not yet fully come to grips with the war and the enumerable changes in both tactics and strategic focus we will have to make.
It isn't my favorite solution, but it is closer to a solution than the 9/11 Commission's suggestion and closer than we are now. The question is: do we have time to wait?
