Here.

What Drudge mentioned was actually a small part of the article.

This is somewhat depressing. It's obvious that the U.S. has lost some of its balls in this arena due to interagency squabbling, bureaucracy, and most of all, almost total paralysis out of fear that something may go wrong or somebody won't approve. That some of the worries are legitimate doesn't cover all the bases, I'm afraid.

The CIA is now pretty much a standard bureaucracy, and like all such the prime goal now seems to be to cover your ass and make sure you hit retirement in one piece.

The NYT has the usual lengthy cheap shots about "if it wasn't for Iraq," but I'm not seeing anything in this article that would lead me to believe that more personnel, more weapons, and more resources would have changed the basic lack of initiative or leadership.

I'm actually hoping most of this is crap, but I've heard enough from other sources to know that at least some of it isn't. The State Department and CIA badly need housecleaning, and changing presidents isn't going to be enough. It wasn't last time.