From my point of view, the academic community in some ways is even more remiss [than the media]. During my brief fledgling career as a novice academic, I have come to the conclusion that most university-level courses on the American foreign policy process are absolutely mute on this subject [intelligence sharing with Congress, and the repercussions thereof, as a major change in the US foreign policy process]. It is as if time was frozen in the 1960's. I believe the current scholarly literature on foreign policy processes has little discussion of this — almost none. I am not aware of any Ph.D. theses being done in this area, although I can think of some wonderful case studies that could be the basis for doctoral dissertations. The media and the academic community do not quite get it.
Phi Beta Iota: The primary focus is on oversight, with some claiming that it is far more intensive than any might imagine, while others see a complete absence of serious scrutiny, particularly into the drone assassination program, rendition and torture, financial relations with others outside the purview of Congressional oversight (both subsidizing selected other foreign intelligence services and receiving off-budget subsidies from some, for example, Saudi Arabia), excessive reliance on foreign intelligence services for hand-outs then presented as if they were obtained clandestinely. The secondary focus is on intelligence sharing in relation to foreign policy — this begs the questions of decision-support to ALL Congressional jurisdictions that is not done today in part because there is no substantive intelligence support to MOST of the US Executive, and it also begs the question raised by Ellen Seidman in the 1990's, to wit, CIA is incapable of “compare and contrast” between domestic challenges and capabilities and those of other countries.