Mike Presky's weblog : post 647, comments below

Home   Galileo Library   World History   Links   Art Gallery   Services
 

« 20 Rules for Writers. | Home | "Attack dogs". »

August 04, 2004


9/11 Commission chimera.

Via TruthOut, is an article by Ray McGovern, a longtime CIA employee, entitled 9/11 Commission Chimera, in which he challenges the work of the 9/11 Commission, especially its contention that no one was/is in charge of the American intelligence community. And accuses it of partisanship and of failing to pursue the real causes of resistance to American imperialism.

Commission Vice Chair Lee Hamilton shared with the Senators his frustration at the answer he got when he kept asking intelligence community officials who is in charge. "The President," they said. Hamilton branded this "not a very satisfactory answer," adding, "no one would say that the Director of Central Intelligence is in charge."

It need not be so. During my 27-years at the Central Intelligence Agency I served under nine directors and worked closely with four of them. They were in charge.

One of them, Admiral Stansfield Turner, came to the C.I.A. from his post as commander of the 6th Fleet with a keen appreciation of the need for the authority necessary to carry out his responsibilities. Recognizing that his authority over the intelligence community was largely ad referendum to the president, he went to President Carter and obtained what was needed. Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, Turner recounted that Carter issued a presidential executive order giving DCI Turner authority over all 15 intelligence agencies "to reallocate funds and people among them and to set priorities for both collecting and analyzing intelligence." Turner notes, "This enabled a far greater degree of coordination than we have today."

So if today "no one is in charge," it does not have to be that way. Hamilton's comment notwithstanding, it is a completely satisfactory answer that the president is in charge, and that he need only empower the DCI by executive order to enable him to get the job done.

Did the commission fail to solicit Admiral Turner's views during its long investigation?...or fail to take them into account? It is difficult to believe that it is a totally new concept to the commission that, as Turner puts it, "the recommended position of National Intelligence Director (NID) already exists...It is the Director of Central Intelligence created by the National Security Act of 1947, with responsibility for coordinating the nation's 15 intelligence agencies."

I wrote a post the other day on similar accusations made by a long-time FBI agent, who also suggests that things inside his agency were not really as the 9/11 Commission makes them out to be. Together they create some serious doubts about whether the commission was even really interested in finding out about 9/11, or whether they were just using the occasion to pursue partisan interests (on both sides).

One of the things McGovern points out is that only two of the ten commissioners had any real experience in the federal government. Given that it is striking that insiders _with_ long experience should be so suspicious and critical.

 permanent link image permalink, page with entry and comments (0)
posted by mike on Wednesday, August 4, 2004 at 11:16 AM





Mike Presky's weblog : 9/11 Commission chimera.

Home   Galileo Library   World History   Links   Art Gallery   Services
 

« 20 Rules for Writers. | Home | "Attack dogs". »
( page top )