From a USA Today editorial, 10/11/04:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-10-11-our-view_x.htm

Congress bails on chance to fix intelligence failures


You'd think the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 might prompt
Congress to favor national security over business as usual.

You'd think three years would be enough time for lawmakers to address
intelligence failings that contributed to those deaths.

You'd think three years would be enough time for lawmakers to address
intelligence failings that contributed to those deaths.

You might even think they would heed the distinguished bipartisan
panel assembled to form a response to the attacks.

But you'd be wrong on all counts.

Congress headed home for the elections Monday without doing anything.

Three years.

No action.

Nothing.

Largely because committee chairmen know that what matters most isn't
protecting the public.

It's protecting their turf.

There is no valid excuse for this.

The 9/11 Commission figured out how to fix the nation's splintered
intelligence apparatus -- centralize.

Create a strong, new intelligence czar and make that leader
accountable to one clear authority in Congress.

Logical.

Workable.

And necessary in light of the facts.

In just the past three years, U.S. intelligence agencies have failed
twice:

----- Before 9/11, "the system was blinking red," in the words of
then-CIA director George Tenet. But the clues were missed.

----- Before the Iraq war, the intelligence community insisted Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It was wrong.

The House and the Senate addressed those failings in different ways,
one more flawed than the other.

The House bill, by far the worse of the two, is no more than an
attempt at deception.

It creates a new intelligence czar, but one lacking control of his
far-flung agencies' budgets.

Members of the 9/11 Commission feared that kind of fakery.

It leaves a fundamental problem unaddressed.

While the CIA director is nominally the head of intelligence, 80% of
the money is controlled by the Pentagon.

No control of money, no power.

The Senate avoided that absurdity.

In fact, it accepted many of the commission's restructuring ideas.

But like the House, it failed to untangle the jumble of congressional
committees that oversee intelligence.

To the 9/11 Commission, this was as important as fixing the agencies
themselves.

The House and Senate intelligence committees, which know the subject
best,

set priorities but have no clout in allocating money where it's
needed.

That's done mostly by the committees in charge of Pentagon spending,
where priorities are different.

The result is mixed messages and ineffective oversight.

A single oversight committee in each chamber could fix that.

So could one joint committee.

But that would require several powerful lawmakers to cede their
authority to others.

The Senate took a limp stab at the problem by resolving to move around
a few responsibilities.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pronounced the moves useless.

The House didn't even make that pretense.

Congressional leaders say they have done precisely what was called for
to better protect the public.

And they are considering returning before the election to reconcile
their differences and pass a reform measure.

The 9/11 Commission left them an astute blueprint, and the 9/11
attacks provided unparalleled impetus for change.

But if they can't improve on what they've done so far, they might as
well stay home.

_____________________________________________________

Do Republicans really hate America that much?

Harry