Comments on the 9/11 Commission
So I want to weigh in briefly on the recent release of the 9/11 commission’s report. I admit at the outset that I haven’t read the report yet, so my opinion is based upon what others have written about it. When I read it myself, I may update my comments.
My first reaction is when did this commission suddenly obtain legitimacy? Is it because the recommendations were unanimous? I watched a lot of the proceedings and remember the obscene treatment of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by commission chairman and partisan hack…er I mean uh…Watergate prosecutor, Richard Ben-Veniste. I remember the mistreatment of John Ashcroft by the commission; as well as the revelation that commission member Jamie Gorelick was sitting on the wrong side of the interrogation table, based upon her conflict of interest in writing the memo which established policies effectively castrating counterintelligence.
One of the commissioners commented yesterday that their recommendations were not a “Chinese menu”, in that the government “could not” pick and choose what they wanted to enact; and that all recommendations MUST be acted upon, and quickly. My response is, who in the hell elected you? This group was a fact finding committee acting at the pleasure of the administration. They acted, now they go home…job over. You’re bored now? Good, now go take up a hobby.
A recommendation that has gotten a lot of air time is the appointment of this “terrorism czar”, a cabinet level position that oversees all intelligence agencies. First I’ll mention the comment about how well the “drug czar” has worked out…um…yeah. Next I’ll just say that I was under the impression, based upon my study of this subject, that such a function was the original purpose of the CIA director. Then I thought that became the job of the Homeland Security Secretary. What did I miss? I do know that yet another layer of bureaucracy never solved one problem. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be cutting the size of government?
Here’s another issue with the appointment of this new intelligence chief. There is only one person in this country uniquely qualified to understand the requirements and intensity of such a job. One man, and one alone, who truly understands the nature of how intelligence is gathered in tandem with how our Commanders in Chief receive and synthesize such material. And, until you can get this guy to sign on and take the job, I’m not convinced.
My first reaction is when did this commission suddenly obtain legitimacy? Is it because the recommendations were unanimous? I watched a lot of the proceedings and remember the obscene treatment of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by commission chairman and partisan hack…er I mean uh…Watergate prosecutor, Richard Ben-Veniste. I remember the mistreatment of John Ashcroft by the commission; as well as the revelation that commission member Jamie Gorelick was sitting on the wrong side of the interrogation table, based upon her conflict of interest in writing the memo which established policies effectively castrating counterintelligence.
One of the commissioners commented yesterday that their recommendations were not a “Chinese menu”, in that the government “could not” pick and choose what they wanted to enact; and that all recommendations MUST be acted upon, and quickly. My response is, who in the hell elected you? This group was a fact finding committee acting at the pleasure of the administration. They acted, now they go home…job over. You’re bored now? Good, now go take up a hobby.
A recommendation that has gotten a lot of air time is the appointment of this “terrorism czar”, a cabinet level position that oversees all intelligence agencies. First I’ll mention the comment about how well the “drug czar” has worked out…um…yeah. Next I’ll just say that I was under the impression, based upon my study of this subject, that such a function was the original purpose of the CIA director. Then I thought that became the job of the Homeland Security Secretary. What did I miss? I do know that yet another layer of bureaucracy never solved one problem. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be cutting the size of government?
Here’s another issue with the appointment of this new intelligence chief. There is only one person in this country uniquely qualified to understand the requirements and intensity of such a job. One man, and one alone, who truly understands the nature of how intelligence is gathered in tandem with how our Commanders in Chief receive and synthesize such material. And, until you can get this guy to sign on and take the job, I’m not convinced.
posted by J at 8:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home