We live in a dangerouse world where there are severely gray areas. We are not going to have a satellite look down and find Osama Bin Laden so he can be served papers.

It is a dirty job to fight people who fight dirty. As such, the people who do not have the stomach for such activities need to step aside along with their "rules", which served both as a hindrance to the intelligence community and helpful guidelines to our professed enemies.

If the reality of what is needed to win the war on terror is too much for certain people to handle, then those people should probably go on vacation for awhile as those up to the job can do so unfettered.

John Negroponte has a long, sordid history of involvement in, and covering up, terrible activities back to the 80's.

We should shun him, and push for his removal.

The issue is less whether to fund intelligence activities adequately than whether to empower such a bad appointee.

Let the administration back off of their arrogance in appointing such a Director, and then ask for the funds.

and that is how to run and organize death squads. That's what he did in Honduras and I would not be surprised if that's what he did in Iraq as well. When we hear about the American trained Iraqi police turning into a death-squad, we can't just be naiive enough to think it's a "coincidence".

Given his history, it makes sense to suppose that Negroponte's real role as director of national intelligence is not to streamline the agencies but to oversee their development into a more cohesive repressive aparatus. Not exactly something he can boast to the press about.

Granted, John Negroponte is to government what Tony Soprano is to business. But the whole idea of having a Director of National Intelligence was doomed to failure, anyway. We already tried this and ended up with the CIA.

The CIA was originally created as a clearing house for other intelligence agencies. The Director of Central Intelligence's job was to organize all this intelligence to make ituseful for the president and other policy makers. The Central Intelligence Agency got its name not because it makes a cool Spanish acronym but because it was to be at the center of the government's intelligence apparatus. So why did we need a whole new position that would function exactly as the old one did?

Oddity would be better. Was the blame for 9/11 not pointing to too much bureaucracy? Intelligence is not originating in Washington but supposedly coordinated there. An old adage says : Too many cooks spoil the soup. That held true for the events of 2001, More of the same in DC is no solution. What is needed is field info. But again reliable intelligence from high ranking Iraki officials was ignored. It did not fit the ideas of the ruling clique. You cant just throw money at a problem and hope for the best. I know of a case were a reprimand was issued against an intelligence employee for reporting anti semitic feelings from the Soviet Union as importing them into the States. Has anything really changed since then (1952). One more layer will hinder not improve the system. Remember the Army was supposed to be greeted with flowers when arriving in Irak. The Source? An Iraki living in the US for years, afterwards being appointed interim premier with first class ties to IRAN! Will another layer stop this?

In response to AC's letter:

The root causes of terrorism lie deeper than simple pathology, or any simple answer like blaming Islam. If we set aside all that makes us civilized and great as a nation in the name of 'combatting terrorists', haven't they achieved their goal-- spreading terror?

It is common for dictators to prey upon fearful foolishness of setting aside our "rules" because the world is "dangerouse" in order to grab power, and Bush has followed in the footsteps of many a great dictator in his hubris. It takes true courage to stand up and resist both, destroyers from without, and within.