I contend our foolish interference overseas lead directly to the blowback of 9/11 and current tensions with Iran, for starters. Nothing good has come to US citizens from the nonsense the intelligence community gets up to. It should be cut down to a twentieth the size ($25 billion or whatever it is these days is ridiculous).
To respond to the fact we don't like it, we elect new officials. We do not terminate the entire national intelligence program. After all, the next bunch of guys in Washington may need a CIA due to no fault of our own, and it take decades to spin one up. Trashing it in a moment of political anger takes away options we might need 20 years from now.
For what? What have they EVER gotten right? This utterly failed 60 year experiment needs to be shut down. The actual intelligence functions should be absorbed into the pentagon with a much smaller budget.
Our national political leadership needs higher level political intelligence, like "what's this foreign leadership likely to do?" and so on, in addition to what they can do (based on e.g. their military resources).
There's also a selection bias in your comment "What have they EVER gotten right?" We hear all about many of their mistakes, but by definition we don't hear about most successes until they're declassified many decades later.
Please share all the slam dunks I'm unaware of.
> leadership needs higher level political intelligence
Subscribe to Foreign Affairs. The idea that you need a multibillion dollar agency to sound out the geopolitical landscape in today's world is absurd.
Let's be honest that their primary function is global agitprop and covert ops. Analysis is a bolt-on, and not better than what you can get in the private sector.
On the other hand I'll certainly agree that CIA analysis is poor at best, and note that it's particularly subject to politics (e.g. see the 2007 "Iran stopped their nuclear weapons program" analysis (not sure if it was from the CIA but the point holds)).
I'd close with noting that covert ops have their place. E.g. in denying the Soviets effective natural gas compressors (and therefore foreign exchange) for their pipelines to Western Europe. Technology embargoes forced them to roll their own, and we fed them bogus info which resulted in very poor results (as I recall a lot of failures and only being able to ship 1/2 the gas they'd intended).
Does anyone remember how totally surprised he was by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? We'll never know if the CIA could have helped avoid that blindness (probably not, too much of it was willful or just not understanding simple realities like the nature of the Soviet Union and its leaders), but by deliberately gutting its HUMINT in favor of "national technical means" (SIGINT and TECHINT (e.g. spy satellites)) he all but ensured he'd be flying blind afterwords.
Looking back, of course, it's been blindingly obvious that there are situations which people are critical -- counter-insurgency, to use a military example. But still technology has always been seductive as a "clean" way to get things like intelligence done.
If I remember correctly, when we axed so much of HUMINT, one of the justifications was that satellites could do most anything a person could do. Totally crazy, of course.
On the other hand, ULTRA was officially declassified in 1974 and in 1977 one might still have the conceit that the NSA could break ComBlock ciphers.
All in all, though, I would suspect that the greater motivation was neutering the icky parts of the CIA that the Democratic party turned on post-1968. Insane on its face "satellites could do most anything a person could do" sounds more like a justification and/or rationalization.