Kevin Drum notes these comments from an anonymous White House Spokesman:
At the White House, where officials are formulating their own package of reform proposals, a senior official, speaking on background to reporters, indicated that the administration will oppose any such arrangement. The official said Bush “wants to protect intelligence agencies from any undue influence” and “ensure that intelligence analysts maintain their autonomy.”
“It is fair to say that there [are] some very important potential consequences to the placement of the office,” the White House official said.
Before tentatively agreeing with the remarks, the Political Animal quips:
The chutzpah of these people is just breathtaking, isn’t it? How do they find people willing to say stuff like this with a straight face?
Maybe they hire them away from the Washington Monthly? Remember this, Kevin:
The Committee ste out to examine a number of issues including whether anyone within the Intelligence Community was pressured to change their judgements or to reach a specific judgement to suit a particular policy objective. Not only did we find no such “pressure,” we found quite the opposite. Intelligence officals across the Community told Members and staff that their assessments were solely the product of their own analyses and judgements. They related to Committee staff in interview after interview their strong belief that the only “pressure’ they felt was to get it right. Every individual with whom we spoke felt a deep sense of responsibility to provide the highest quality product possible. This was especially evident among terrorism analysts whose assessments had become all the more important after September 11th, 2001.
Of course, the bi-partisan report means nothing to fierce partisans. If you say something often enough in certain circles- it is true. That is why they still are attempting to defend and spin serial liar Joe Wilson, even though Tom Maguire has effectively laughed them out of the blogosphere.
Al Maviva
John Boy,
Might as well not say anything about this. You are up against a liberal triumvirate here, and it will fall on deaf ears.
First off, when you are the minority party, “bipartisan” means “we get our way.” The bipartisan label, and apparently bipartisan and high quality staff work underlying the 9/11 report, means it will be taken as gospel by the Dems, even if all of it isn’t exactly clever. Or even if it is. Doesn’t matter, it’s “bipartisan” so we like it.
Second, it’s a recommendation to impose another layer of bureaucracy. How could any liberal resist? It’s like catnip to cats.
Third, it’s a convenient way to bash Bush. One of the advantages of the system right now, is there is a 6:00 AM or so briefing (or series of briefings) every day for the President, with Ms. Rice, the CIA Director, AG Ashcroft and Secretary Ridge. There are often divergent opinions about what to do on particular issues. The Bushies may be in opposition because if you unify intelligence opinions in one person, there will be no divergence of opinions on intelligence issues. Therefore…
Fourth, it’s likely to be a durable Bush-bashing issue. The Bushies are likely to stick to the present arrangement, because it works pretty well, and putting all intel under one person, could have equally disastrous effects. So it’s likely that the Bushies will hang onto this position. So, if the Dems can get a little traction, why not focus on this issue? It’ll be there…
capt joe
Al, and your point is? ….
marc
If you say something often enough in certain circles- it is true.
You mean like ‘Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?’
Ken Hahn
Yeah Marc, Clinton lied about that too.
beloney
Just ran across an interesting article (@ Volohk Conspirecy)http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/KerryEdwards_menu-31Jul04.htmy)
Seems the man can’t get it straight in ANYthing he does.