An Intelligence Director, Finally
February 18, 2005EDITORIAL
An Intelligence Director, Finally
ohn Negroponte, nominated yesterday by President Bush to be the first director of national intelligence, would bring many strong qualifications to the job: decades of diplomatic experience, a reputation for successful bureaucratic infighting and some relevant managerial experience. What he has not consistently demonstrated is the kind of bedrock commitment to democratic values, professional independence and frank relations with Congress that he will need to successfully do a job whose powers have already been dangerously diluted. We hope that after what seems likely to be a relatively smooth Senate confirmation process, Mr. Negroponte can put these doubts to rest.
As envisioned by the 9/11 commission, the intelligence director was supposed to impose order and coordination on the work of the nation's 15 spy agencies, whose rivalries in the months leading up to the catastrophic Al Qaeda attacks proved so damaging. Now, thanks to tireless Pentagon lobbying, craven Congressional back-room dealing and a lack of firm leadership from the White House, the new director will have to do this without the full hiring, firing and budgeting authority that ought to go with the job. That leaves Mr. Negroponte facing grueling turf battles with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a major feature of the new job.
Mr. Negroponte has had a remarkably varied and generally distinguished diplomatic career, serving presidents of both parties going back to the early 1960's. His most controversial diplomatic post was as President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, when Washington was deeply involved in civil wars in nearby Nicaragua and El Salvador. There are still unresolved questions concerning his candor with Congress in those years about severe human rights violations by the Honduran Army and about possible involvement in Washington's efforts to indirectly steer aid to the Nicaraguan contras to bypass American legal restrictions.
Still, the Senate confirmed Mr. Negroponte to a succession of later posts. He was Mr. Bush's United Nations representative during the bitter debates over invading Iraq and has been the United States ambassador in Baghdad since last June.
As an ambassador, Mr. Negroponte has loyally reflected and protected the positions of whatever administration happened to be in power. As national intelligence director, he will have to hew to a more independent standard. After a series of disastrous intelligence failures - including the missed clues of 9/11, faulty weapons estimates in Iraq and America's lack of preparation for the post-invasion insurgency - there is a clear need for accountability. The new national intelligence director must be prepared to stand up for the professional reporting of the nation's spy agencies and to be personally answerable to Congress and the American people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/opinion/18fri3.html?th&oref=login
An Intelligence Director, Finally
ohn Negroponte, nominated yesterday by President Bush to be the first director of national intelligence, would bring many strong qualifications to the job: decades of diplomatic experience, a reputation for successful bureaucratic infighting and some relevant managerial experience. What he has not consistently demonstrated is the kind of bedrock commitment to democratic values, professional independence and frank relations with Congress that he will need to successfully do a job whose powers have already been dangerously diluted. We hope that after what seems likely to be a relatively smooth Senate confirmation process, Mr. Negroponte can put these doubts to rest.
As envisioned by the 9/11 commission, the intelligence director was supposed to impose order and coordination on the work of the nation's 15 spy agencies, whose rivalries in the months leading up to the catastrophic Al Qaeda attacks proved so damaging. Now, thanks to tireless Pentagon lobbying, craven Congressional back-room dealing and a lack of firm leadership from the White House, the new director will have to do this without the full hiring, firing and budgeting authority that ought to go with the job. That leaves Mr. Negroponte facing grueling turf battles with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a major feature of the new job.
Mr. Negroponte has had a remarkably varied and generally distinguished diplomatic career, serving presidents of both parties going back to the early 1960's. His most controversial diplomatic post was as President Ronald Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, when Washington was deeply involved in civil wars in nearby Nicaragua and El Salvador. There are still unresolved questions concerning his candor with Congress in those years about severe human rights violations by the Honduran Army and about possible involvement in Washington's efforts to indirectly steer aid to the Nicaraguan contras to bypass American legal restrictions.
Still, the Senate confirmed Mr. Negroponte to a succession of later posts. He was Mr. Bush's United Nations representative during the bitter debates over invading Iraq and has been the United States ambassador in Baghdad since last June.
As an ambassador, Mr. Negroponte has loyally reflected and protected the positions of whatever administration happened to be in power. As national intelligence director, he will have to hew to a more independent standard. After a series of disastrous intelligence failures - including the missed clues of 9/11, faulty weapons estimates in Iraq and America's lack of preparation for the post-invasion insurgency - there is a clear need for accountability. The new national intelligence director must be prepared to stand up for the professional reporting of the nation's spy agencies and to be personally answerable to Congress and the American people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/opinion/18fri3.html?th&oref=login
posted by stebaldos at 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home