The terror warnings/terror tsar

First the so called national intelligence proposed by President Bush yesterday. Regardless of whether you agree with the idea of one, it seems we can all agree that Bush's proposal is not quite what the commission had in mind:

Two Sept. 11 commission members questioned President Bush's proposal for a national intelligence director, saying Tuesday that whoever holds the job should have the power to control spending and staff at all 15 U.S. spy agencies.

Two others, meanwhile, declined to criticize the president and said they wanted to avoid being seen as overly political.

Former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said the post would be weakened by anything less than full budget authority and the ability to hire and fire.

"Providing a figurehead is not what we intended," Ben-Veniste said.

While it may seem that I support the Kerry proposal on this one, I really believe more debate is needed before agreeing to all proposed in the commission report. I do agree with Kerry, however, that Congress should be reconvened so debate can start as soon as possible.

As to the terror warnings. I realize many think the warnings were a pure political move on Bush's part. I realize that you may think I am one of them because of my previous post. However, without concrete proof, I cannot say I agree with the naysayers for now. I am reluctant to question these motives for now.

I was thinking earlier today, though, that if the 9/11 commission can propose an independent national intelligence director, why not an independent Homeland Security advisor? My knowledge of these things is still limited, but certainly this would help depoliticize the whole "credible terrorist threat" idea. It is something that, if I had more readers, I would open to discussion. Until then, I will just wonder about it privately.