What do folks think about the debate over a NID? The 9/11 commssion recommended that the office be a quite powerful one. It would control the budgets of all foreign and domestic intelligence services (including those within the DoD). It would have the power to appoint the leaders of those services, subject to the President's approval. And it would serve as the primary liason between all of those services and the White House. An enormously powerful post, with vast responsibilities.

In my opinion, long-overdue - with the possible exception of the "domestic" part. This is what the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence) was supposed to be, when that post was created in 1947. Without clear budget powers, without authority over personnel, the NID would be just another figurehead, another DCI. I'm not, however, comfortable with the idea of a domestic intelligence agency, especially one under the same roof as the foreign intelligence agency. There's way too much room there for potential abuse and cross-pollination.

John Kerry has proclaimed that he will rubber-stamp the 9/11 commission suggestions, including the full NDI. He obviously feels that nuancing them would make him appear weak and waffly. For his part, President Bush, apparently feeling outflanked by Kerry's position, and stunned by public support for the recommendations, announced that, he, too, supports the creation of a NDI - but with a few minor, almost irrelevant, nitpicky alterations:
White House Press Release (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040802-2.html)
And I think that the new National Intelligence Director ought to be able to coordinate budgets. I certainly hope Congress reforms its budget process, too, so that it's a seamless process.

Secondly, the National Intelligence Director will work with the respective agencies to set priorities. But let me make it also very clear that when it comes to operations, the chain of command will be intact. When the Defense Department is conducting operations to secure the homeland, there'll be nothing in between the Secretary of Defense and me.No budget power. No personnel authority. No change in the chain-of-command. He even refuses to make the NDI a cabinet-level or White House post. In short, he would take the DCI, remove the "C" and add an "N" in front. Oh, and separate this powerless figurehead job from the job of leading the CIA.

Doesn't this sound like "embrace, extend, extinguish"? If he doesn't like the NDI, why can't he just say so? And how can all the major media outlets possibly be running headlines like "Bush embraces National Intelligence Director"? From his own mouth, it's nothing of the sort! I really hope we can have an honest, adult debate about this before it gets rubberstamped either way.