Hey, they blew it with the Muslim convert that killed an American soldier recently too. It's FBI incompetence in both cases.

The FBI hasn't been particularly successful on the anthrax attacks, either. Is that because the attacks only targeted Democrats?

I normally try to question my more paranoid thoughts and see if some bureaucratic, political or rational reason works, but the FBI hasn't done a lot to make good sense seem to be the explanation for its multitude of failures.

In the FBI's case as an organization they have rather frequently exceeded my limited paranoid imagination. They are a lot like the public school system I shepherded an ADD child through. The teachers I worked with were generally good to great, but the minute I had to deal with the administration (management) I was the enemy and got no cooperation and no effective solutions at all.

The FBI was organized by Hoover in the 20's to always focus on high profile cases and public relations over substance. Chase individual bank robbers and avoid the Mafia as too rich and politically powerful. PR was what gave them their budget and their power and that remains true. They got skunked by the ATF and Elliot Ness in the 30's, but seem to have learned a lot about how to win at federal-level organizational politics.

The FBI has had a long record as an action arm of the ultra conservatives and arch-segregationists, reflecting Hoover's attitudes, and Hoover's death has not changed the nature or competence of the organization that I can see. Their PR has simply been updated to be less blatantly biased as their previous targets have become more politically powerful - as the Civil Rights movement has done.

The upper management of the FBI is selected for having the proper FBI attitude, which perpetuates the problems. The only solution I ever came up with for changing the FBI culture was to cease to promote FBI agents to management in the FBI. If they are sufficiently competent to be promoted, then let them be selected by and promoted into other police agencies. Then for the higher ranks in the FBI replace everyone with personnel from those other agencies and from state police forces. And promote no one in the FBI currently serving at GS 14 or higher. All GS 15 and higher promotions should come from other agencies. Then limit promotions for anyone with over 15 years service at all. At the same time, bring in all new top executive managers from outside as political appointees without civil service status or protections.

Competent FBI agents would retain a career path to promotion, but the selections would be made by other agencies who understood the career requirements without having the FBI culture. The new upper management would come in with cultures from the other agencies. But since the transitions would be individual and not wholesale, the new guys would learn the ropes and the current operations, pretty much as any promotee would have to do.

Run this regime for about five to ten years, and (if carefully supervised) the FBI would become a changed organization. It certainly has not changed enough from the grandiose PR-oriented but less-than-competent Hoover-era FBI.

Management should have a get-promoted or retire policy similar to the one in the military. No lifers in management. Limit the lifers in the civil service non-police ranks, also, but maybe with longer time limits since their function is often to maintain organization experience at a given organization level.

Maybe that would break up the culture of incompetence the FBI is mired in. Rather radical, but the alternative is to establish a replacement agency without any FBI veterans in it at all. Something inside Dept. of Homeland Security, perhaps. But that would certainly completely eliminate current on-going operations and those for the near future (such as support of current federal prosecutions or terrorist investigations.) It would be an unacceptable risk.

I don't have a clue how they could deal with their inability to manage computer systems change. That's a government-wide problem, not one limited to the FBI. Civil Service provides long term stability which is extremely important. Government is responsible for providing stable secure environment. That's true because it is responsible for everyone within its jurisdiction(s) and cannot select its markets and ignore others where it cannot efficiently provide services as private businesses can. But government and civil service is poorly suited to managing rapid radical changes in procedures or methods. Which is why, of course, civil servants do not establish overall goals and policies. Politicians do.

And the guy who did "Peace Train."

And Cheech, don't forget Cheech...