[LS]

Although I hate the NY Times---and Hersh is hardly a "reliable source"---this is likely right on. I have a feeling that in the effort to "demilitarize" after the Cold War and Gulf War, Bush I but especially Clinton de-funded the intel agencies DRAMATICALLY.

Oddly, it is like bank deregulation: you can deregulate banks more if you increase the oversight and inspecitions at an equal pace. You can reduce your military, but you must offset that with increases in intel, snoops, and special ops.

[Liz]

Clinton de-funded the intel agencies DRAMATICALLY. ........You can reduce your
military, but you must offset that with increases in intel, snoops, and special ops.

HUMINT was key. Clinton enforced a ridiculous Human Rights Scrub Policy that
would have made PBS's Mr Rogers the only qualified intel asset.....cardigan and all.....

[Truelove]

Intelligence did not fail us. I'm sure they had an idea that this would happen, but I'm equally sure that all of their recommendations for increased security,etc. would have been ignored as "too inconvenient", "not warranted for political reasons", etc.

Intel is always responsible for a failure and Ops for a success. Don't buy into it.
Please also note that there may be ALOT more known that is not being admitted to for security reasons?

It isn't good opsec to have your hand tipped to the media, right? I mean, really, OBL watches CNN too. Let's give our guys a little more credit, for all we know it could have been much worse.

[noah]

The right thing to do is to PICK the highest level CIA officer who publically QUIT in protest to the downgrading of CIA capability and MAKE HIM HEAD. Now was there anybody, and who was it??? If two are equally ranked, the FIRST to QUit and the more public it was WINS the JOB and presidential commendation.

[FReethesheeples]

Well put @ #3.

Useful analysis form Hirsch.

Intelligent observations & insights from you at #3.