I continue to think that a critical question to answer is, what was Tenet's payoff to not only (basically) oversee the cooking of the intelligence, but to also then take the fall. It had to be something more than a "freedom meda".

Great article. Thanks, WP!

PS Glad you're BACK!

You mean combat veterans Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld were the most vocal for the Iraq War???

Lets see ... "intelligence" is what the bu$hit philosophy cooked up into compelling reason and the Congress and the body politic was very impressed?

I think I will just say that the bottom line is that in reality intelligence was missing.

It was fundamental ignorance and lies that the administration delivered. That is their number one product line.

Lets face it, they don't do intelligence ... they do dumber and dumbest.

waynemadsenreport.com

has a continuing story about the uncovering of the financial connections and trail of money between the Saudis, Bush & Co., Al Qaeda and some other unsavory middlemen. It's an amazing story, though incomplete at this time. Perhaps in time there will be enough to hang 'em all.

Maybe Bush & Co. are just a client of the Saudis and they subcontracted to Al Qaeda. It's intriguing and explains why they 'misread' the intelligence and stood down on 9/11.

OT!!!! - Well, sorta, kinda, not really.

C.I.A. Report Said to Fault Pre-9/11 Leadership

BTW, that "whooshing" sound you hear is the backlash building.

Put on the waders, they're about to start leaking, and it may get deep before it's over.

The great question was never: Why did Coalition Forces invade Iraq, the U.N.'s chief miscreant, defiler of women, abuser of children, and molester of men?

The real question was: Why Saddam Hussein did not avert a promised war by acceding to lenient demands for Iraq W.M.D. disclosures?

Answers should reflect your highest level of critical thinking and your ability to discourse in a dignified manner with those of opposing views. If emotional distress or immaturity present insurmountable obstacles, whine as usual for the peer group in which you feel most comfortable. Readers are very adept.

The great question is: Why did bu$h give flip-flopper reasons for invading Iraq and never uttering a word of truth in any of them? Why do you support the LIAR? Do you enjoy living in a country led by a LIAR?

Go back to sleep oh melted parrot.

>The real question was: Why Saddam Hussein did >not avert a promised war by acceding to lenient >demands for Iraq W.M.D. disclosures?

OK, Mr. Dignified. You have really bought the right wing BS hook, line and sinker. Your highest level of critical thinking is very, very low.

Remember this? Source Baltimore Sun:

"Iraq, facing mounting international pressure and President Bush's oft-stated goal of driving Saddam Hussein from power, agreed yesterday to the return of United Nations weapons inspectors "without conditions," a move it said would remove all suspicion that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraqi offer, contained in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was quickly rebuffed by the White House, which demanded that the U.N. Security Council continue tightening the screws on Baghdad."

http://www.baltimoresun....?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

Or, how about this? Source Washington Post:

By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested --- and disproved --- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.

http://www.washingtonpos...les/A21854-2005Apr2.html

Your arrogant posturing is quite immature. Please post a follow up to this thoughtful reply.

I know that has not been in the MSM because, even though the possibility is not as remote as the Global Warming fantasy, lawyers are not supporting it. Believe the lawyers (paid to deceive juries and impeach the integrity of their foes), believe Hollywood types (paid to deceive viewers) and believe MSM journalists (well, they have been caught Rather big time, lately, haven't they).

Whatever you do, slam the messenger of open-minded views. Let's not believe things that do not fit preconceived notions like this, however:

1. Saddam's regime had been exploiting the Oil-for-Food program (UN now agrees) as a bribe delivery system. He believed that he had bought off enough corrupt Europeans and UN staff to forever stymie U.S. and British efforts to enforce UN resolutions around WMD. He simply didn't believe the Americans and Brits would form a coalition and attack him. Why give up WMD if you think the fix is in within the international community? That is why Saddam failed to account for WMDs. What WMDs you ask?

2. Scott Ritter was asked by John McCain (R, AZ) whether UNSCOM had intelligence suggesting that Iraq had assembled the components for three nuclear weapons and all that it lacked was the fissile material. Ritter replied: "The Special Commission has intelligence information, which suggests that components necessary for three nuclear weapons exists, lacking the fissile material. Yes, sir." As Paul Leventhal, head of the Nuclear Control Institute remarked in response to Ritter's statement,[26] "Iraq could be only days or weeks away from having nuclear weapons if it acquires the needed plutonium or bomb-grade uranium on the black market or by other means." Ritter also said that, absent UNSCOM, Iraq could reconstruct its chemical and biological weapons programs in six months, as well as its missile program. He said that Iraq had a plan for achieving a missile breakout within six months of receiving the signal from Saddam Hussein.