[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Alas, the sad truth is that the CIA, despite its Bourne Identity reputation, has become a timorous, risk-averse bureaucracy.

Yep.

[Bernard Marx]

Alas, the sad truth is that the CIA, despite its Bourne Identity reputation, has become a timorous, risk-averse bureaucracy.

That's in big part the legacy of the Frank Church Committee and former spy chief Stansfield Turner's disastrous tenure as CIA director. In his "Halloween Massacre," Turner eliminated some 800 human intelligence operatives, placing emphasis on "technical" intelligence (satellites, etc.) rather than gritty sharp-end-of-the-stick human intelligence work. The Agency became politicized and even Porter Goss, who tried hard to restore it to its pre-Church role, was sacrificed to the Political Beasts by George W. Bush.

[BlueNgold]

Alas, the sad truth is that the CIA, despite its Bourne Identity reputation, has become a timorous, risk-averse bureaucracy.

Have you read the Bourne books or seen the movies????

#1 - in the books the agency of record is the State Department's "Consular Operations" branch - not the CIA. So any reputation gained through the movies is ill-gotten.
#2 - the books and the movies speak over and over to a corrupt bloated bureaucracy that is concerned more with politics than it is with results. Anyone looking at the CIA through 'Bourne-colored' glasses should see the agency as ineffective, overly-bureaucratic, and politicized to the point of ineptitude (perhaps a correct view). Remember - Bourne is at odds with the agency - not their poster boy.