The Bush administration is in such disarray, they can't even bring peace to the ongoing war between the Dept. of Justice and Homeland Security. How can they bring peace to Iraq. See this story from the Wall Street Journal.
Washington Turf Battle Muddles
Nation's Terror-Warning System
By ROBERT BLOCK and GARY FIELDS
WASHINGTON -- This week's government warning of a possible terrorist attack in the U.S. has exposed and aggravated simmering tensions between the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security over which should act as the nation's main terrorism warning bell.
Homeland Security, charged by law with analyzing intelligence to assess threats, is the lead designated agency for issuing threat advisories. But officials there say they had little advance notice before Attorney General John Ashcroft issued his broad warning on Wednesday. Moreover, Homeland Security officials believed the information being used by Justice, much of which had been known for some time, was not new or specific enough to merit an announcement or other action.
Consequently, hours before Mr. Ashcroft said "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicated that al Qaeda is planning an attack in the U.S. in the next few months, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said on television that the information didn't warrant raising the color-coded alert level to orange from yellow.
The different conclusions and poor communications are symptomatic of turf battles that have emerged since Homeland Security was created a little more than a year ago. Those battles are a growing source of concern to some in Congress and the administration, who worry that the lack of consensus between the two departments sends mixed signals that undermine the credibility of the terror-alert system and the government's ability to make people vigilant. One administration official said yesterday that Homeland Security is suffering from "growing pains" as it sorts out its role in the administration.
"When it comes to terrorism threat advisories, the federal government has to speak with one voice," said Christopher Cox (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, in an interview yesterday. "[Wednesday's] news conference and Secretary Ridge's earlier public statements conveyed the perception that the broad and close consultation we expect may not have taken place in this case."
Mr. Cox said his committee, already conducting oversight on the coordination issue, expects Wednesday's comments to be part of forthcoming Homeland Security appropriations hearings.
On Wednesday morning, at the secure daily video conference of top officials from major intelligence agencies, Lt. Gen. Patrick Hughes, assistant secretary of information analysis at Homeland Security, was furious that some media outlets had begun reporting the night before that al Qaeda sleeper cells were ready to launch a summer terrorist attack and that Mr. Ashcroft would hold a news conference to discuss the threat. "It was a rather heated moment," said a senior Homeland Security official privy to the briefing. "Pat was demanding to know, 'What are you guys [at Justice] saying here?' "
In an interview yesterday, Lt. Gen. Hughes, a former military spymaster called out of retirement by the president, said he "was displeased that information that should be discussed in the appropriate forums was being discussed in inappropriate forums." He declined to comment further.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said he wouldn't respond directly, but that it is the responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department to prevent terror attacks. "We do that through gathering intelligence, through our law-enforcement activities and also by making information available to the public and asking the public to assist us," he said. "We have received intelligence that indicates that al Qaeda's operations are disrupted when they believe the public is more vigilant. It is an essential part of the counterterrorism strategy." He also said that the department works closely with Homeland Security.
Also on Wednesday morning, Mr. Ridge was scheduled to appear on morning television shows to discuss citizen preparedness and summer travel. Instead he suddenly found himself dealing with the burgeoning story. As the day wore on, the rift between the two departments produced a sharp series of exchanges -- with the White House caught in the middle. After some Homeland Security officials complained to the White House that they had been kept out of the loop, senior Justice Department aides countered that Mr. Ridge himself had discussed the terror warning with Mr. Ashcroft several days before it was issued.
Homeland Security officials said they knew there would be a news conference but were told the principal purpose would be to re-introduce six of the seven people who pose a potential danger.
"The attorney general had an opportunity to put this in perspective, that there was nothing new here and that we were looking for help finding these seven individuals for questioning," said one senior Homeland Security official. "But he didn't do that. Instead he said in January, al Qaeda was 70% ready to attack us and in March they were 90% ready and they were going to hit us hard. We weren't expecting that."
Wednesday was not the first time that the two agencies have come to different conclusions on whether to warn the public of a terrorist threat. On March 24, the FBI issued a warning to law-enforcement agencies and industry officials about a potential terrorist threat to Texas oil refineries. But Homeland Security did not participate. In April, Rep. Cox and Rep. Jim Gibbons (R., Nevada), wrote Mr. Ridge to ask why his department and the FBI did not issue a joint threat advisory.
Mr. Ridge's office responded last week that prior to the FBI's March 24 warning, it had reviewed the intelligence and "deemed the information regarding this issue to be of little credibility." The FBI, however, went ahead and issued its advisory. The letter to Rep. Cox also stated that at this time there is no "formal Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and the FBI with respect to the issuance of advisories."
The root of the problem is the division of labor built into the current system. While Homeland Security's mission is to protect the nation from a terrorist attack, the primary law-enforcement agency assigned to that mission, the FBI, remains under the Justice Department.
Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and homeland-security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said Homeland Security hasn't yet amassed clout in the broader national security and intelligence community, though it is supposed to be the lead agency in analyzing information on threats to the United States. Instead, it often takes its cues from the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency, he said. "It is inevitable that when there is such a limited intelligence capability the department gets sidelined and remains largely a peripheral player in determining whether there is threat or not," he said.
Meanwhile, Justice's power has grown, even as Homeland Security came into being. Within months of Homeland Security's creation, the White House approved a plan to shift responsibility for terror-related financial investigations to the FBI from the Bureau of Immigration of Customs Enforcement. That agency is part of Homeland Security and its investigations into the funding of terror had been considered one of the department's most innovative and successful programs.