Intelligence Agencies strike back!

"If there wasn't sufficient debate about these issues, it wasn't the fault of the people who prepared this estimate.'' -- John E. McLaughlin (acting intelligence director)

If memory serves correctly - there was a LOT of sufficient debate nationally and internationally before Bush sent troops to Iraq....

hmm

Another interesting analysis in the same article:

But in an hourlong interview on Wednesday morning in his office, Mr. Roberts said he was "not too sure" that the administration would have invaded if it had known how flimsy the intelligence was on Iraq and illicit weapons. Instead, the senator said, Mr. Bush might well have advocated efforts to maintain sanctions against Iraq and to continue to try to unearth the truth through the work of United Nations inspectors. "I don't think the president would have said that military action is justified right now," Mr. Roberts said. If the administration had been given "accurate intelligence," he said, Mr. Bush "might have said, 'Saddam's a bad guy, and we've got to continue with the no-fly zones and with inspections.' "

At one level, Mr. Roberts's comments can be seen as offering support for the White House, by underscoring the view that intelligence agencies, not Mr. Bush, should be held responsible for fundamental misjudgments about Iraq. But the suggestion that Mr. Bush might well have chosen a different course appeared to run counter to the White House suggestion that the president had been obliged in the case of Iraq to head off a potential threat.

Mr. Roberts is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee - a Republican from Kansas..

Isn't it interesting that the administration and conservative party are clearly playing both sides of the aisle?? "If something falls that way, we'll follow.. If it goes the other way, we'll follow it again..." I haven't seen so much double talk in a very long time..