Jump to content
The Education Forum

New FBI Intelligence Service


Recommended Posts

How many intelligence gathering agencies does one nation need? Isn't that why Negroponte was appointed? Seems like we can't get the ones we already have to play ball.

Anyway, I thought the last line of this was interesting.

Updated: 1:04 p.m. ET June 29, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush, embracing 70 of the 74 recommendations of a blue-ribbon intelligence commission, said Wednesday he was creating a national security service within the FBI to specialize in intelligence as part of a shake-up of the nation’s disparate spy agencies.

A fact sheet describing the White House’s broad acceptance of the panel’s suggestions said that three more of the recommendations would be studied and that one recommendation — which was classified — was being rejected. The decisions come after a 90-day review led by the National Security Council’s homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend.

The changes being adopted include directing the Justice Department to consolidate its counterterrorism, espionage and intelligence units. Bush also will ask Congress to create a new assistant attorney general position to help centralize those operations.

Along with the list of changes being heeded, Bush also issued an executive order freezing assets of individuals or groups involved in activities related to the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

The Justice Department and the FBI "have made substantial progress toward strengthening their national security capabilities and coordinating effectively with other elements of the government with related responsibilities, but further prompt action is necessary to meet challenges to the security of the United States," Bush wrote in a memo to intelligence community leaders.

In March, a nine-member commission led by Republican Judge Laurence Silberman and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb put forward a scathing 600-page report on the intelligence community and its ability to understand and protect against the threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Bush asked for the Robb-Silberman review in early 2004 after it became clear that prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed. After a 13-month investigation, the commission concluded the intelligence community was “dead wrong” in almost all of its prewar findings on Iraq’s arsenal.

Bush also asked the commission to study the sweeping intelligence reform law that Congress passed in December, which created a new national intelligence director to oversee the 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.

Some accepted advice

Among the 70 changes being accepted by the administration were:

Forming a new National Counter Proliferation Center — with a staff of less than 100 — to coordinate the U.S. government’s collection and analysis of intelligence on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The task is now performed by many national security agencies.

Asking Congress to reform its oversight of the intelligence community, a controversial proposal that could provoke turf wars and other difficulties on Capitol Hill.

Putting CIA Director Porter Goss in charge of all overseas human intelligence, or traditional spy work, done by government operatives.

Proposing legislation that would extend the duration of electronic surveillance in cases involving foreign agents.

Implementing new procedures for dissenting intelligence analysis to be allowed to float up to senior officials.

Giving the intelligence director a staff of "mission managers" who will develop strategies for specific intelligence areas. As an example, the commission said the director could have a mission manager focused on a specific country, such as China.

The commission’s findings — and the White House’s acceptance of them — follow numerous reforms already ordered by Congress, the White House and within government agencies themselves since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the botched Iraq intelligence estimates.

They also follow a number of bruising critiques of the CIA, FBI, Defense Department and other elements of the intelligence community. The Robb-Silberman commission’s March report was the most recent from an independent panel.

The panel put forward numerous organizational changes, but it said Bush could implement many without action by Congress. For instance, the commissioners asked Bush to free National Intelligence Director John Negroponte from handling the president’s morning intelligence briefing, giving the director more time to focus on the intelligence community’s long-term priorities.

It also emphasized that the White House needed to put its full support behind Negroponte as he takes on the intelligence agencies’ “almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to every problem or crisis is to pass a new law or create a new bureaucracy. This allows the sheeple to sleep better as more of their tax money is wasted.

After 9/11, Bush built a massive new bureaucracy called Homeland Security. But despite its name, they apparently forgot to include a unit therein that actually deals with homeland or "national security," so they're going to put a new "national security service" in at the FBI.

Nobody blinks an eye at this kind of stuff, while the folks who come up with it are probably rolling on the floor laughing.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good indicator that there is a problem within one's information gathering apparatus is when one erects a sign like the one below.

Who would have ever thought that those particular words would have come together under any circumstances?

The mind boggles. :unsure:

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a good indicator that there is a problem within one's information gathering apparatus is when one erects a sign like the one below.

Who would have ever thought that those particular words would have come together under any circumstances?

The mind boggles.  :unsure:

James

"The George Bush Center For Being A Jackass With A Nearly Illiterate Son Who Will One Day Be President And An Even Bigger Jackass" must have been too wordy.

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI reorganization efforts have all been flawed.

They could not research their own databases and they scrapped their computer system. Mueller keeps adding layers and Executive reorganization schemes.

This new shake up will not help them, either.

The CIA and NSA don't trust them at all, and keep everything from them.

Justice and FBI are the Barney Fife's of the intelligence agencies, real deadwood.

Plus they used their labs to frame people so often judges don't believe their technical findings.

The FBI is full of tenured state employees who trip over each other trying for institutional advancement but the terrorists and criminals in the street never quite make the list..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

"The George Bush Center For Being A Jackass With A Nearly Illiterate Son Who Will One Day Be President And An Even Bigger Jackass" must have been too wordy.

Takes one to know one, Greg. In my opinion these crude commnents merely reflect badly on your intelligence. Any kid can call names. Grow up!

Besides I thought it was common knowledge that the donkey was the party of the Dems.

Query: have there been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since Pres Bush got Homeland Security going?

The problem with many of you is you just don't get it. Which is why your candidates routinely lost.

I read an interesting article in "The New Yorker" where Dem Sen Biden was talking about why Kerry lost. He had advised Kerry that ALL Kerry should talk about was security. Kerry rejected Biden's counsel.

After 9/11/2001, the primary concern of most Americans is the physical safety of their families. Biden (and Sen Clinton, by the way) gets it. You don't.

The US will normally support a candidate who is for the strongest defense, particularly in a time of crisis. JFK knew that, so he campaigned on a non-existent "missile gap" and his demonstration of interest in the security of the country is one of the reasons why he (narrowly) won the 1960 election.

You may or may not like it, but that is the way it is!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a youth, I participated in more than my share of trail rides on horseback, primarily in Indiana. One grizzled-looking old fellow on the trails used to carry a basketball referee's whistle around his neck, and when kids asked him why a grown man wore a whistle, he'd reply: "To keep the alligators away."

When the kids made fun of his answer, he'd ask them: "Seen any alligators today?" When they answered, "NO," he'd respond with "See? It works!"

Somehow, Tim's rhetorical question about terrorist attacks on US soil reminded me of old man Foster and his whistle.

And as far as why JFK won in '60, I'd always heard it was the votes from the "graveyard precincts" in Mayor Daley's Chicago that provided Kennedy's margin of victory, and it was only Nixon's sense of honor that prevented him from challenging the results.

Now Tim's telling us it was old-fashioned issues-based politics that beat Nixon. Go figure. Every time I think I understand where Tim's coming from, he changes positions. All this time, I thought Tim had said that Kennedy had "stolen" the election from Nixon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote:

"The George Bush Center For Being A Jackass With A Nearly Illiterate Son Who Will One Day Be President And An Even Bigger Jackass" must have been too wordy.

Takes one to know one, Greg.  In my opinion these crude commnents merely reflect badly on your intelligence.  Any kid can call names.  Grow up!

Besides I thought it was common knowledge that the donkey was the party of the Dems.

Query:  have there been ANY terrorist attacks on US soil since Pres Bush got Homeland Security going?

The problem with many of you is you just don't get it.  Which is why your candidates routinely lost.

I read an interesting article in "The New Yorker" where Dem Sen Biden was talking about why Kerry lost.  He had advised Kerry that ALL Kerry should talk about was security.  Kerry rejected Biden's counsel. 

After 9/11/2001, the primary concern of most Americans is the physical safety of their families.  Biden (and Sen Clinton, by the way) gets it.  You don't.

The US will normally support a candidate who is for the strongest defense, particularly in a time of crisis.  JFK knew that, so he campaigned on a non-existent "missile gap" and his demonstration of interest in the security of the country is one of the reasons why he (narrowly) won the 1960 election.

You may or may not like it, but that is the way it is!

******************

Whoa a minute Tim:

Greg gave his opinion, he has that right...""The George Bush Center For Being A Jackass With A Nearly Illiterate Son Who Will One Day Be President And An Even Bigger Jackass" must have been too wordy.""

You gave your opinion......""Takes one to know one, Greg. In my opinion these crude commnents merely reflect badly on your intelligence. Any kid can call names. Grow up!""

""The problem with many of you is you just don't get it. Which is why your candidates routinely lost.""

Now Tim you have used a lot of names in a derogatory way since you joined this Forum....so don't be the kettle that calls the pot, burnt arse, it really doesn't fit.......We all know Bush is a Republican.....and you seem to think they are above reproach.....that's fine, that's up to you.....but others are not, therefore apparently do not want to ,nor see him in the same light, and that is their right...

Here have another cone and cool down again..... :blink:

B..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your alligator story, Mark, but it is a false analogy, of course.

For there are no alligators in Indiana. Which is what makes the story funny. (I had heard a variant of it.)

But we all know there are indeed terrorists who would like nothing better than to inflict mayhem on Americans. Whether our country's disruption of the terrorist leadership in Afghanistan and the much closer scrutiny has prevented subsequent attacks may be speculative although have there not been known plots that have been discovered and stopped? Despite that, and despite what I wrote, I still do not think our security is adequate and there are just so many different ways a terrorist group could inflict catastrophic damage to our country.

Now on to the 1960 election.

As we all know, the election is decided in the Electoral College. It is pretty clear that Giancana and Daley "stole" Illinois from Nixon. However, changing the electoral votes in Illinois from Kennedy to Nixon would not have changed the victor in the Electoral College. There was vote fraud in other states as well, however. Certainly in Texas. I am not certain if studies indicate that the fraud in Texas was of a magnitude sufficient that without it Nixon would have carried Texas. (We can say with some confidence that Illinois was "stolen" because the Kennedy margin was so close in Illinois.) Had Texas and Illinois BOTH cast their electoral votes for Nixon, I believe he would have won the Electoral College and the presidency.

In a close election, of course, there are many factors that create the difference between victory and defeat. There is a limit to vote fraud. Kennedy's astute campaigning and superb organization brought him close enough that the fraud may have been sufficient to carry him. But he got that close in part because of his very successful campaigning on issues such as the missile gap and Cuba-- and his phone calls on behalf of Martin Luther King, Jr. when King was jailed.

Which raises an interesting story you may have heard. After Kennedy's assistance to King, King's father, a Baptist minister, announced he was going to change his support from Nixon to Kennedy. He had opposed Kennedy because of anti-Catholocism. When someone remarked to Kennedy about the religious bigotry of King's father, Kennedy remarked: "We all have our fathers!"

Briefly back to the fraud. There was also massive fraud and vote-buying in the critical West Virginia primary. But JFK's victory there was also due to his effective campaigning and his skillful handling of the religious issue. Part of the West Virginia strategy was playing over and over again Kennedy's catchy campaign song which Frank Sinatra's songwriter had written for Kennedy. ("High Hopes").

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you miss my point yet again.

There hasn't been a reported terrorist attack in the US since 9/11; neither has there been a reported alligator in the woods in Indiana. This does NOT prove that there have been no terrorists imported to the US since the creation of Homeland Security any more than it proves that there have been no alligators imported to Indiana.

The "homeland" is only as secure as we BELIEVE it to be; your Kennedy story about the nonexistent missile gap demonstrates that.

You can choose to believe that this security is because of Bush's Homeland Security measures, and I'm free to believe that Indiana is safe from alligators because of Foster's whistle. But the reality is, BOTH assumptions are mere illusions, proven only by circumstantial evidence and nothing more. In the mind, perception becomes reality whether it's truth-based or not.

THAT was my point about the whistle...just like the Homeland Security measures, if you think it protects you, then evidently it does [until proven otherwise].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, you missed my point, I am afraid.

It's not a question of the IMPORTATION of alligators.

The whistle story is funny because obviously there are no alligators in Indiana so the whistle clearly had nothing to do with it. That, I think, is what makes the story funny.

But there are terrorists aiming at us. So it is akin to someone in my state, where people are from time to time killed by gators, claiming a whistle was effective in keeping the gators away. Seems illogical but it makes you wonder (Since there are alligators present).

I think we do have the terrorists "on the run" and several plots have indeed been disrupted in the past four years. In addition, we have been attempting to disrupt their financing and their communications. But that does not mean we are safe yet, by any means.

I can tell you, though, that I sleep better when there is a Republican president in office!

And my main point was that Bush was re-elected in large part because the voters senses he was more concerned about homeland security than Kerry was. That was the point of Sen. Biden's comments in the "New Yorker" story. Many voters feel just like I do: they sleep better knowing Bush is at the helm of the "ship of state".

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...