Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I agree with Kaus:
- kf is Stupid II: I still don't understand why it's a good idea to centralize intelligence under a single czar. If the problem with pre-Iraq intelligence was the tendency to tell the Administration what it wanted to hear, won't narrowing the information funnel maximize the chances of that happening again? Won't it be easier to "politicize" a single "National Intelligence Director"? What we want is a multiplicity of perspectives and an error-revealing debate, no? Rich Lowry's op-ed in Friday's N.Y. Post predicts:
if the bill passes and if--God forbid--there's another major terror attack a few years hence, the complaint will immediately go up that U.S. intelligence is "too centralized."
Are Democrats so wedded to the 9/11-Commission and the 9/11 families that they don't see this? During the election season, the 9/11 families were a media-compatible vehicle for criticizing the Bush administration. But the election is over. Democrats should be able to take a fresh look.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2110033/
|
Yeah, but a problem with pre-9/11 intelligence was a lack of centralization. Personally, I would prefer a heightened risk of a pre-Iraq intelligence fuck up that then chance of a pre-9/11 fuck up. But I admit that it is a close call.
