So. How 'bout that Intelligence Bill?
What? What is going on? Is this another rift at the top?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/politics/24panel.html?hp&ex=1101358800&en=be31b330b9863e7b&ei=5094&partner=homepage wrote:
White House Seeks Deal to Save Intelligence Bill
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - The White House held out hope on Tuesday that a compromise could be reached on legislation to overhaul American intelligence, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has been accused of working secretly to scuttle the bill, vowed his support for President Bush's position.
In a Pentagon news conference, Mr. Rumsfeld denied that he had exerted his influence to protect the Defense Department's sweeping budgetary powers over intelligence. But he said that even the administration's views on the legislation could shift as Congressional negotiators sought compromise language to revive the bill.
"Needless to say, I'm a part of this administration," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I support the president's position."
In Crawford, Tex., a White House spokeswoman said that Mr. Bush's stance remained unchanged but that the administration was working with members of Congress on legislative language that could accommodate the concerns of House Republicans without diluting the essence of the changes the bill would bring about.
"The president's views remain that he believes we should have a strong national intelligence director with full budget authority that also preserves the chain of command," said Claire Buchan, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush...
With the bill stalled, the White House on Tuesday disclosed a series of orders that Mr. Bush signed last week intended to strengthen the nation's intelligence capabilities, including a directive to the Central Intelligence Agency to increase by 50 percent the number of analysts and agents in its clandestine unit and agents proficient in "mission-critical languages."
Standing at Mr. Rumsfeld's side at the Pentagon, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not waver in expressing his opposition to any bill that did not preserve a provision in the House version to continue Pentagon control over intelligence money for gathering information specifically needed by combat commanders in the field...
When that position was taken together with Mr. Rumsfeld's earlier public statements cautioning against a rush to reorganize how America's spy agencies collect, analyze and share intelligence, some in Congress saw a coordinated Pentagon effort to scuttle a bill endorsed by Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney...
Mr. Rumsfeld said his words of caution and even criticism of efforts to create a national intelligence director to control budgets and the flow of intelligence were offered early in the debate. Those statements, he emphasized, were made "well before the president established a complete position on intelligence reform" and before the drafting of any legislation...
Nah. I don't actually think so (to my above question). More likely Rummy wanted to have certain sections organized differently, etc. But I really don't know so much about what the original bill pushed for. Anyone? This reminds me of Erendis' earlier comments (in another thread) about how the PATRIOT Act wouldn't have passed if it wasn't pushed through with in weeks of 9/11. Intelligence overhaul is no small matter. I'm glad Congress and perhaps even Rummy are hesitant and trying to explore how to proceed with more caution.
