Milbank nd Pincus FORCEFULLY attack

[spindrifter]

the administration's denial that it cooked intelligence presented to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101832.html

snip...

the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

snip...

the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions

[vickitulsa]

1. Excellent article, THANKS.

Recommended.

About those "asterisks" ...

A friend once told me that when I said something and then followed it with a "BUT" and gave counterarguments, I was just negating whatever went BEFORE the "but." Seems appropriate here, since every claim he made has to be clarified with a big "BUT" ---

[BeyondGeography]

2. More proof that IWR was all about politics

<The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.>

Why read up when you're convinced it's political suicide to oppose the overthrow of Saddam in the post 9/11 environment? The alternative is to believe our elected officials didn't give a shit about researching the available facts connected with authorizing a war. Hmmmm......