You could see "abolishing" the CIA by name and replacing it with a new agency over the Bush torture program, and the failure to cut through the legal morass erected to protect the authors of the torture program --- a lasting shame for the CIA and the nation --- would certainly justify that.

But there's no possibility of abolishing the function of intelligence analysis and clandestine service, nor should you want there to be: net-net, the CIA might in fact prevent more armed conflicts than it contributes to, and in any case no major power will ever unilaterally disarm.

Against all that, you have a 70-year legacy of people putting their lives on the line for the agency, which abolition/rebranding would likely be seen as sullying (further than the torture program already has).

It's not going to happen.

I echo the other commenters on this thread who suggest that we might want to think harder about holding Congress and our Presidents responsible for how they've overseen and directed the CIA.

Smuggling guns from Benghazi to Syria, using the embassy in Benghazi as a means of cover, was the lastest I heard. Sey Hersh did a whole investigation and report on it

Note your own phrasing: "the Bush torture program". The torture program, if you oppose it, wasn't CIA oversight failure, it was a policy failure originating in the executive branch. There was plenty of awareness and oversight. Also, there was an indictment and conviction - David Passaro. He was sentenced to 8 years for the death in custody of Abdul Wali.