Blair is responsible for briefing the President. ABC News reports officials say Blair's reports weren't "crisp or well-presented." I'm not buying it. When you're reporting to the President directly, that kind of performance flaw -- incompetence -- would have been nipped in the bud by termination or replacement very quickly, It certainly wouldn't be allowed to go on for months.
So what's the Administration's real problem with Blair? That unlike Obama, he has been critical of the CIA's expansive covert ops? That he's been at odds with Counterterrorism and homeland security adviser John Brennan, who has usurped some of his duties and is preferred by Obama? That CIA Chief Leon Panetta has had big problems with Blair?
The bigger question is how will intelligence policy change going forward? It seems like the focus will soon be primarily on threats within the U.S. Blair recently has warned of increased cyberthreats and homegrown terrorism. The Intelligence Committee report placed heavy blame on the NCTC for focusing on intelligence about AQAP attacks in Yemen rather than in the U.S. The Senate committee wants even more information sharing among various agencies, even if it results in someone being nominated to be on a watchlist based on incomplete information.
Here's one likely consequence of Blair's departure: The CIA and Pentagon will have a freer reign (less oversight by others) in spying activities. Via the Times:
Mr. Blair’s departure could strengthen the hand of the C.I.A operatives, who have bristled at directives from Mr. Blair’s office. In recent months, Mr. Blair has been outspoken about reining in the C.I.A.’s covert activities, citing their propensity to backfire and tarnish America’s image.
The administration has largely embraced the C.I.A. operations, especially the agency’s campaign to kill militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas with drone aircraft.
...The vast majority of America’s annual intelligence budget, nearly $50 billion, is spent on spy satellites and high-tech listening devices under Pentagon control.
What do you get when you connect these dots? The guy who criticized excessive CIA spying is canned; the Senate wants more attention paid to possible attacks within the U.S.; and most of the intelligence budget is spent on spy satellites and electronic surveillance controlled by the Pentagon.
It seems to me we're going to get more secret spying with less judicial or other meaningful oversight right here at home, all with the blessing of the President.
They're even prepping us for it. Via CNN today, officials say the Pakistani Taliban is planning a U.S. attack and they have no idea where. Translation: we need more listening bugs to determine the location and prevent it.
CNN also reports a military official says the insurgents who attacked Bagram AFB in Afghanistan this week were wearing stolen U.S. military-style uniforms which are available on the internet for purchase. Translation: We need more spying on internet activities.
There's more: An auto parts dealer in Missouri pleaded guilty this week to money laundering and bank fraud -- he sent money to al Qaeda and had taken an oath to help them. Translation: More spying on domestic bank accounts, please.
A man in New York is charged with using his special computer skills to help al Qaeda. Translation: It's time to do more checks on those using encrypted software and those who wire money from the U.S. to other countries.
What's next? And if you think increased surveillance at home is just a temporary measure aimed at terrorists, ask yourself when it will end, considering the Government says the war on terror has no end. Most likely, it will end at the same time those deemed so dangerous they must be detained in the U.S. indefinitely (even if no charges are filed against them or in the unlikely event they are tried and acquitted) are released -- Never.
