Well, that kinda depends, Evi. By “apparatus” do you mean like listening posts in Syria or attaching electrodes to nuns in El Salvador?
Yeah, but a policy that recruits more enemies than it neutralizes is black-hole stupid.
From your cite dated January 2005
There’s nothing in that article about a bigger budget for human intelligence.
From the president’s december 2001 press conference:
How do you, Evil One, tell the difference between meaningless phrases, and the president’s actual intentions? I look for things like bin Laden behind bars, or a presidential effort to increase human intelligence funding; so far, there’s no sign of either.
Oh yes, Evil One, there are also those on the right who despise the CIA, so dontcha be smearin just us Libruhls with that brush.
That’s easy, Squink. If it goes perfectly, its the genius of The Leader. If it goes totally tits-up, its George Tenet’s fault. And then, of course, he gets a medal.
Thanks John Mace! More evidence that you can always take elucidator at his word.
That word of course, being Axolotl. 
That was kind of a subtle shout-out to my homies who dig the Ancient Classics.
“Yah, boss”
“Dig, dig, dig…”
“But, mainly…”
Ahh, the good old “many on the left” business. It is so productive to make remarks about what vaguely defined groups of people think. As far as I can tell, EVERYONE thinks we need more human intelligence apparatus. I’m not sure who thought so before 9/11 (I suspect it was a group of people who crossed party lines… anyone know?) but I’m pretty sure everyone thinks so now. (Snippy quasi-relevant side note: gee, wouldn’t it be useful to have Arabic translators in our military intelligence apparatus? Oh, wait, we did, but then it turned out some of them were GAY.)
Anyhow, the reason it came up is that increasing funding for human intelligence is just the kind of thing which, when contrasted to Bombing, sounds like liberal wishy washiness. In my liberal opinion, winning the war on terror, or coming as close as it’s realistic to think we ever might, is going to take a multi pronged effort. One prong is military. One prong is intelligence. But there are 3 or 4 other prongs, and mentioning them doesn’t make me a coward or a wimp, or someone who wants to put Bin Laden in group therapy.
I agree. In certain very limited situations, when the situation absolutely calls for it. The situation can be far from black and white.
I mean all the down and dirty work of Human Intelligence. Recuiting people on college campuses. Training them in tradecraft and to speak arabic. Capturing and interrogating hostiles. Killing them when possible and necessary.
All of this takes time and money…and the will to do things that are necessary to get the job done.
By the way, was the whole “electrodes to nuns” some sort of throwaway line or did something like that actually happen?
Since the CIA budget is black (not open for public scrutiny) I have to trust that the funding for the Operations Directorate of the CIA has been increased to accomplish the tasking that GWB set forth after 9/11 to increase human intelligence.
That remark goes back to the Church Committee hearings of the 1970’s, which many people have said crippled the CIA’s human intelligence apparatus. The image of an out of control CIA with evil agents oppressing the innocent and noble has been a leftist fantasy for a long time. One of the justifications of the Church Committee in cutting Operations was the increasing ability of Signal and Satellite intelligence to gather information. That should show those “cowboys” a thing or two. Of course nobody considered that it takes up to a decade to train and insert an agent and get them to the point where they are providing useful information. You can’t just show up at an AQ training camp with a paste-on beard.
The silliness continued into the Clinton administration with the executive order that human intelligence sources for the CIA could not have criminal records. If that is not sacrificing pragmatism and common sense on the altar of ideology, I don’t know what is.
Please see my above post for my response.
This is a good example of ideological idiocy trumping common sense.
Agreed.
Agreed again. Ain’t common ground cool?
The people of Guatemala who elected Arbenz, or the people in Iran who elected Mossadegh, or the people in Chile who elected Allende, might not think it a “fantasy” that the US government, via the CIA, overthrew them in favor of military dictatorships that swore they were “anti-Communist”.
The list is substantially longer than that, of course. It even includes overthrow of Qassim in Iraq in favor of a more cooperative young officer whose name you can guess.
Unless someone is about to put forth the suggestion that Mr. Rove is an agent of CIA, this is way hijack. Evil One, the aptly yclept, seems concerned that we all understand what he regards as perfectly obvious, i.e., that our intelligence problems can be largely attributed to lily-livered woosie liberals, who lack the sternly masculine realpolitik of hairy-chested conservatives.
Its the utterest rot, of course, but deserving of its own thread. Should friend **Evil One ** so desire, he is free to open such a thread.
Has he any insight to offer on the matter at hand?
No No No, Mr. Rove tells us who the humint agents for the CIA are. By showing us what cool jobs these people have, and how there are entire corporations set up to protect their cover, he helps recruit more agents. 
As slight support for Evil One’s faith in increased funding I did hear from NPR that class sizes at the farm increased this year, can’t track it down on the internet.
You’re right, this is a total hijack, an interesting one, but a hijack nonetheless. I’ll attempt to cease and desist.
The hijack began with me responding to your statements, luci. Do we both owe the OP an apology? Perhaps we do.
As to the matter at hand, it is just the latest example of the down and dirty partisan politics that is only going to get worse. As other posters have pointed out, Rove is making a calculated effort to paint some Democrats into an uncomfortable corner. Both sides have made it obvious that they are going to play as dirty as they can. It will be interesting to watch within the board as the usual suspects defend or revile the latest examples depending on whose ox is being gored.
Perhaps this thread could be revived if any of you choose to do so.
While we’re about all this, I should like to take a moment to recognize those honest conservatives who have expressed their dismay and disapproval over these statements and tactics. For an example, we have Mr. Bill Kristol, appearing with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Mr. Wallace was attempting to pimp the party line, and Mr. Kristol would have none of it.
(excerped from The Daily Howler, which I heartily encourage…)
Mr. Kristol shows signs of being a worthy successor to “Wild Bill” Buckley. If only his magazine did not offer print to such whores entire as the ghastly Hugh Hewitt, but still…credit where credit is due.
If it is noticed that I have not extended such recognition to our own honest conservatives who have spoken out herein, let it be noted that I simply expected nothing less.