White House Backs CIA Over DNI in Turf Battles
EmailThe White House this week sided with Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta in a turf battle he was waging against President Obama's director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair (Ret.), knowledgeable sources tell ABC News.
For decades, the chief U.S. intelligence officer in each country traditionally has been the CIA station chief. Ever since the Office of Director of National Intelligence was created in 2004, the CIA station chief has also served as the eyes and ears for the DNI.
Earlier this year, Blair suggested that, in certain circumstances, he should get to pick the person whom he wants to serve as his eyes and ears abroad, picking among the various agency officials in each country, that often include officials from not just the CIA but the National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, military intelligence and so on.
Panetta didn't take warmly to the idea, sources tell ABC News.
Then in May, Blair issued a memo to intelligence officials stating that he would assume that responsibility. Panetta issued a counter-memo telling intelligence officials to carry on as they had been, since the matter was not resolved. The White House was asked to decide who has authority.
The issue was a "hot potato," one official said, since no one in the Obama administration seemed to want to offend either Panetta or Blair. National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) was unable to resolve the disagreement. Vice President Biden was unable to resolve the disagreement. The decision then went back to Jones. This issue became a proxy for other issues involving who was the head of the intelligence community.
This week, Jones sided with Panetta on the turf issue, but sources said he reinforced Blair's authority as head of the intelligence community on other more secret matters.
“The White House has made its decision," a U.S. intelligence official tells ABC News. "The bottom line is that CIA station chiefs will also — without exception — be the DNI’s representatives in embassies overseas. That arrangement — consistent from one American embassy to the next — precludes any confusion over who speaks for U.S. intelligence abroad. Our ambassadors know, and our partners know. They have a single point of contact. It’s a clear, logical outcome.”
The position of director of national intelligence was created in 2004 as a result of intelligence missteps and miscommunication leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to have one central White House official to serve as the head of the intelligence community overseeing the National Intelligence Program and serving as the principal intelligence advisor to the president, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters.
Given that authority, government officials say, and the fact that the CIA is, at least on paper, supposed to answer to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, it wasn't unreasonable for DNI Blair to assert that he should have the right to name the top spy. Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee backed Blair's view as expressed in the memo.
But Panetta — a skilled Washington, D.C., political operator with many allies in the White House — asserted that the CIA's responsibility is to interact with the intelligence agencies of other countries, that CIA station chiefs have been handling the job for more than half a century, and anyone given the position of Blair's "eyes and ears" would cause confusion as to who the top intelligence officer in each country is.
And ultimately, the White House decided to side with Panetta.
Everyone in the administration is now, of course, trying to put a good face on it all and put the turf battle in the rear-view mirror.
"With this matter resolved, the CIA looks forward to an even stronger relationship with the DNI," said George Little of the CIA Office of Public Affairs.
“Director Blair strongly believes that the president and the nation deserve a national security team that is focused on the big issues — efforts to keep the country safe from another terrorist attack and gaining insights to prevent our adversaries from undermining U.S. interests," said Wendy Morigi, a spokesperson for Director Blair. “One of the important lessons of 9/11 was that we needed one person in charge of the efforts to coordinate, integrate and drive best practices across the Intelligence Community. This agreement – which addresses several key authorities — reinforces the DNI’s important mission of advancing an intelligence community team that is greater than the sum of its parts.”
- jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
An administration in disarray…
After a little less than a year, everyone knows that there is a perfect vacuum of leadership at the very top.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 12, 2009, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Of course, the CIA is led by and chock full of political cronies and partisans. Which is right up Obama’s alley.
Posted by: Huh? | November 12, 2009, 11:42 pm 11:42 pm
actual discussion and thought by the administration, what a welcome contrast to the Bush/Cheney fiasco years of dictatorial crime and world wide embarrassment and financial collapse..
too bad ‘W’ and those ‘careful’ Bushies didn’t pay attention to the PDB describing an imminent Bin Laden attack that ended in 9•11…..
oh, I forgot they kept us safe, if you don’t count Sept 11th
Posted by: hey Jude | November 13, 2009, 12:17 am 12:17 am
“too bad ‘W’ and those ‘careful’ Bushies didn’t pay attention to the PDB describing an imminent Bin Laden attack that ended in 9•11.”
Unbelievable that you can say that after all that’s come out about Ft. Hood.
Just simply unbelievable.
Posted by: Huh? | November 13, 2009, 1:01 am 1:01 am
An administration in disarray…
After a little less than a year, everyone knows that there is a perfect vacuum of leadership at the very top.
Fascist Hyena | Nov 12, 2009 11:15:55 PM
Refreshing to see the Right is playing the Little Lie strategy a bit. Still makes you look pretty silly considering how the entire article is about President Obama personally asserting authority to settle a conflict that arose from the creation of the DNI in 2004.
Posted by: jhw539 | November 13, 2009, 1:14 am 1:14 am
too bad ‘W’ and those ‘careful’ Bushies didn’t pay attention to the PDB describing an imminent Bin Laden attack that ended in 9•11…..
oh, I forgot they kept us safe, if you don’t count Sept 11th
_______________________________
Don’t forget, Bush was ‘busy’ vacationing on his ranch for 3 weeks and arrived back in Washington just in time to be caught totally off guard by 9/11 . ..
Posted by: Billy Davenport | November 13, 2009, 1:18 am 1:18 am
Unbelievable that you can say that after all that’s come out about Ft. Hood. Just simply unbelievable.
Posted by: Huh?
not really, unless you’re implying that like Bush, Obama got a PDB stating that the Ft. Hood shootings were imminent.. but of course we know that Obama didn’t get such a PDB, and Bush did and ignored the threat, so…. what’s your point?
btw: I’d really wait and see what the outcome of the trial is re: Ft. Hood…..after all, it’s still America and the ‘right’ doesn’t get to declare guilt and innocence without due process. If you have faith in the military, wait for their legal process and trial…….. unless you’re saying you have no faith in military law.
Posted by: hey Jude | November 13, 2009, 3:26 am 3:26 am
Is there at least one sober adult in this administration?
Posted by: higgins1990 | November 13, 2009, 5:06 am 5:06 am
Obama’s first response to Nasan’s rampage:
“Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.
I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It’s good to see you.”
Says it all, really.
Posted by: Huh? | November 13, 2009, 6:54 am 6:54 am
Does this mean that the WH and Congress can now trust the CIA, or are they still that pack of liars Speaker Pelosi identified them as last year?
Posted by: N2vip | November 13, 2009, 7:55 am 7:55 am
The CIA hasn’t done the best job in the world, especially when politicians get involved with them doing their job. 911 might have been prevented if they intelligence agencies had been allowed to trade information, as an example. Pelosi recently got caught lying and the CIA has been under attack by her and her political friends for it ever since. I wouldn’t feel good about some political appointee running any agency dealing with our national security. It makes as much sense as having a community organizer be your dentist….!
Posted by: DL13 | November 13, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am
“Is there at least one sober adult in this administration?”
Nope. Two words describe the apex of the Obama administration’s accomplishments, Beer Summit.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | November 13, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
Jones sided with Panetta? Excuse me? The buck didn’t stop with the Decider-of-Chief? Gimmee a break.
Posted by: Sparkie | November 13, 2009, 10:20 am 10:20 am
===Posted by: hey Jude | Nov 13, 2009 3:26:59 AM===
I would suggest that you read the PDB that Bush read in August 2001 instead of using talking points but what’s the use? You have a narrative and you will continue it no matter what.
Posted by: Axey | November 13, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
===it’s still America and the ‘right’ doesn’t get to declare guilt and innocence without due process===
Sure we do, unless we are the judge or jury at his trial.
Posted by: Axey | November 13, 2009, 10:36 am 10:36 am
PDB George W. Bush August 6, 2001
“FBI information . . . indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
“The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
________________________________
“What did the President do with these warnings? Did anything happen? None of his senior aides were present at the August 6 briefing, which took place at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. From a distance, it looks as if the warning came but they all were on vacation.”
“Even with the text, we don’t really know what the President knew and when he knew it. According to the CIA and the 9/11 commission, there were 40 other mentions of Al Qaeda or Bin Laden in the President’s Daily Briefs before 9/11. Most of those presumably came during what Dr. Rice called “the threat spike” of June and July 2001. The August 6 Brief came on the downside of that spike, so the other PDB reports may be more (or less) alarming.”
Lots of warnings . . .
Posted by: tierra | November 13, 2009, 11:07 am 11:07 am
“Refreshing to see the Right is playing the Little Lie strategy a bit. Still makes you look pretty silly considering how the entire article is about President Obama personally asserting authority to settle a conflict that arose from the creation of the DNI in 2004.”
The article says:
“The decision then went back to Jones. This issue became a proxy for other issues involving who was the head of the intelligence community.
This week, Jones sided with Panetta on the turf issue, but sources said he reinforced Blair’s authority as head of the intelligence community on other more secret matters.”
Seems to me Obama voted “present”. Way to lead!
Posted by: Occam's Razor | November 13, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Seems to me Obama voted “present”. Way to lead!
___________________________________
Huh? The President received input from all sides and made a decision.
Posted by: tierra | November 13, 2009, 11:50 am 11:50 am
The President received input from all sides and made a decision.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 13, 2009 11:50:16 AM
“The White House was asked to decide who has authority.”
“The White House has made its decision”
“And ultimately, the White House decided to side with Panetta.”
You’re assuming it was the President.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 13, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
unless..
Posted by: Axey
‘unless’… ‘if’ ……
the constant republican ‘policy’ mantra
Obama’s first response to Nasan’s rampage: Posted by: Huh?
Bush claiming we’re gonna get the bad guys on the golf course, the saying..’now, watch this shot’ while doing the W dumb laugh
Posted by: hey Jude | November 13, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
Bush claiming we’re gonna get the bad guys on the golf course, the saying..’now, watch this shot’ while doing the W dumb laugh
Posted by: hey Jude | Nov 13, 2009 12:23:03 PM
You’re livin’ in the past, man…
I love how defense of Obama is always to bash Bush. Apparently, once you’re infected with BDS, there is no cure.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 13, 2009, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
“You’re livin’ in the past, man…”
Not the only one apparently….
“National Archives Guard: “Hey, Sandy. Are those documents or are you just happy to see me?”
Berger: “Whoa! How did THOSE get there?”
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 13, 2009 11:44:23 AM”
Posted by: Ryan C | November 13, 2009, 1:30 pm 1:30 pm
“I would suggest that you read the PDB that Bush read in August 2001 instead of using talking points but what’s the use?”
You think that helps Bush?
“Al Qaeda members — including some who are U.S. citizens — have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
I remember during airstrikes on Iraq that the security at airports was buffeted and warned to be on the look out and I still wonder why airport security was not given a heads up during the months of August and September.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 13, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
“Bush claiming we’re gonna get the bad guys on the golf course, the saying..’now, watch this shot’ while doing the W dumb laugh”
He gave up golf after that embarrassing footage came out in F 9/11.
Ya know for the troops…
Posted by: Ryan C | November 13, 2009, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 13, 2009 1:30:15 PM
Touche. However…
One Sandy Berger comment vs. 12 million (exaggerated) “Bush is worse” comments. Yea, that’s about even.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 13, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
He gave up golf after that embarrassing footage came out in F 9/11.
Ya know for the troops…
Posted by: Ryan C | Nov 13, 2009 1:34:59 PM
Well, he was a politician afer all.
At least he knows when to give up golf cause it might look like he doesn’t care. This President? Nah. Fore!
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 13, 2009, 2:05 pm 2:05 pm
“One Sandy Berger comment vs. 12 million (exaggerated) “Bush is worse” comments. Yea, that’s about even.”
What can I say Bush offers far more material to work with.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 13, 2009, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
This undermines the DNI’s authority, no matter how much of a positive spin they put on it. The White House should have sided with Blair for the same reasons that the Senate did: IRTPA 2004 gave him that authority. This was the first real test to say if that authority really existed.
I can’t stress how much this decision will hurt the intent of Congress in creating it.
Posted by: jwilson | November 13, 2009, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
Gotta keep it in the family..no matter how inefficient…
Posted by: Parallex View | November 13, 2009, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm