Impasse over intelligence reform may delay ambitious Bush agenda

WASHINGTON -- The battle over intelligence reform is one that President Bush neither sought nor rushed to join. But now that he has become enmeshed in it, the fight threatens to overshadow Bush's priorities for a second term.

With the recent failure of the Senate-House conference committee to reach agreement on an intelligence bill, Bush faces a delicate choice between two potentially risky actions:

 He can continue to call for change in the nation's intelligence apparatus but wait for the changes until the new Congress convenes in January. This is the easier course politically, but it means Bush's ambitious agenda might be delayed while the battle over intelligence reform continues to loom -- and possibly that no intelligence reform will occur at all.

 He can aggressively take on the handful of House Republicans blocking a deal, in hope of achieving a quick solution when the current Congress meets briefly starting Dec. 6. That would clear the slate for other legislation he wants taken up, such as changes in Social Security. But it also could antagonize powerful congressional chairmen whose support he will need later. And because success on intelligence is far from guaranteed, he could end up squandering his new political capital in a losing cause.

''If it doesn't get done now, you've got to start over in January, and he has a huge agenda of his own that he wants to get enacted," said Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution who started as an aide to President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.

''And he knows from the history of the presidency that in a two-term presidency, the sand starts to run out of the hourglass and that fifth year is very important," Hess said.

''He's got a lot of his own programs on which he wants to build his legacy, and he needs to get off to a very fast start in January. To that extent, he's better off getting this done now, if he can."

But pushing the measure through now might require Bush to do something for which he has shown little propensity -- wage an all-out lobbying effort aimed at members of his party.

Bush's dilemma reflects how the effort to reorganize the nation's intelligence agencies is turning into an epic struggle on several levels.

There is, first, the issue of national security -- how best to reorganize the intelligence community to protect Americans in an age of deadly terrorism.

Then there are the turf battles being fought among executive branch departments and within Congress by the various oversight committees, for control of personnel and purse strings.

Finally, political conflicts are arising on a number of fronts -- within the House, between the Senate and House, and most recently, between Bush and key House members.

The push to improve US intelligence gathering began with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and picked up steam with the 9/11 Commission's report calling for a national director of intelligence and a national counterterrorism center to improve data analysis and sharing among the 15 spy agencies.

The fiasco over Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction added urgency.

As a result, Congress moved with unusual speed. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill based on the 9/11 Commission proposals, but House Republicans resisted some key recommendations.

Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, opposes reducing Pentagon control over tactical intelligence.

And Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican of Wisconsin who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, wants tough immigration measures.

Although Bush says he generally favored the Senate version, the House GOP chairmen refuse to yield and the measure has stalled.

General Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently reiterated his opposition to an intelligence czar who would control tactical intelligence now under Pentagon control.

And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced to deny reports that he has quietly lobbied against changes urged by the president.

Bush has become increasingly earnest about getting a bill passed, Hess said, but doing so may require ''making sure as much as possible that no one loses."

That would mean allowing Sensenbrenner and Hunter to emerge with some kind of victory.

But Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council official now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, questions how much pressure Bush will exert behind the scenes.

''It's a legitimate question whether the White House really wants this," Benjamin said.

''That question has been begged by the fact that this president, who has all this political capital, who just won an election, just got stiffed by his own party on the Hill."