Experts debate intelligence bill's value

Will intelligence reform help head off another attack?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- For all the changes in the intelligence bill, many question whether it will help prevent another terrorist attack and make the major improvements promised by ardent supporters.
The 600-plus-page legislation has been heralded as a much-needed fix to help ensure the intelligence failures before Sept. 11, 2001, and the botched analysis of Iraq's weapons capabilities don't happen again.
At a news conference Tuesday, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., a former Intelligence Committee chairman, said the changes will improve the nation's capabilities in dramatic ways.
By finding Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 plot was developed or improving the Iraq intelligence analysis, "we might have avoided both the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war," Graham said.
But intelligence veterans -- some whose records were blemished by recent failures -- have a litany of concerns about what will amount to the largest intelligence overhaul since the creation of the CIA in 1947.
They question whether more bureaucracy is what the nation needs, whether the new structure is well-suited to stop terrorists and whether the changes should come in the midst of a war.
Above all, some doubt whether the bill will truly bring together the nation's intelligence apparatus to "connect the dots" -- a phrase so common it's become almost clich & eacute; when discussing intelligence criticism post-9/11.
"Big picture, I think it is a step in the right direction," said David Kay, who was the CIA's lead weapons hunter in Iraq until January. But "if you think this bill is going to solve all the intelligence problems in the last 50 years, that is the ultimate in naivet & eacute;."
Intelligence director
The centerpiece of the legislation -- and one of its most debated facets -- is the creation of a national intelligence director, who will set up a new office and staff to oversee huge swaths of the intelligence community. Such a position has been debated by blue-ribbon panels for years but picked up steam only with the Sept. 11 commission's recommendation this summer.
The new director is intended to have strong budget authority, necessary to wield the true power in Washington. That person will also have new powers over the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies within the Pentagon but will not direct military operations.
But there is resistance to the new office. While acknowledging recent intelligence shortfalls, former CIA Director George Tenet last week questioned whether it was wise to separate the new director from the CIA. Now, the CIA director serves a dual role as overseer of the 15-agency intelligence community.
"This person has to be leading men and women every day and taking risks," said Tenet, who left the agency in July after working for presidents Clinton and Bush. "I don't believe that you should separate the leader of American intelligence from a line agency."
Not all former directors agree. President Carter's CIA Director Stansfield Turner supports creation of national intelligence director, but only if the position comes with strong control over intelligence budgets, collection and analysis.
"If the authorities given to the new national intelligence director are not adequate, it will be a setback," said Turner, who had yet to read the final legislation, made public Tuesday evening.
Human assets
Elsewhere in the bill, some in and out of Congress complain the final product is a watered-down compromise. For instance, Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted language to change asylum laws to limit loopholes he said potential terrorists might exploit.
During the past four months of intense debate, significant focus has been on how the bureaucracy would operate. But some intelligence veterans say the deeper need is for people who can understand and penetrate terrorist organizations.
Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit who quit last month to be more outspoken on intelligence problems, said what's needed are more "human assets" -- people training to understand Muslim extremism for careers in intelligence. Among assignments for intelligence officials will be the new National Counterterrorism Center.
"The problem with al-Qaida and bin Laden and Islamism generally is that we have so few officers," Scheuer said. "No one ever stopped to say, 'We have to fit the reform to the capable people.'"
Scheuer and others also question the timing -- in the middle of a war -- and worry the bureaucratic disruptions will make the country more vulnerable.
The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, whose members come from diverse backgrounds but sometimes still work on contract for intelligence agencies, supported the changes.
"The feeling really is you can't wait. It's like having a sick patient. You need to do it now," said Elizabeth Bancroft, the group's executive director. "We think the patient will be much better for it."