When do we get some REAL answers about what led up to Iraq...?

booman wants to know, and, in framing the question precisely, lays out a compelling summary of what we know so far...

The CIA did its best to warn the administration about the threat of 9/11. When the administration took no action, the CIA was blamed for failing to connect the dots. They bravely absorbed that unfair characterization, but quickly found themselves under tremendous pressure to link the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, and Iraq to international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and unverifiable WMD programs. When they could not, or would not, make those determinations, columnists like William Safire launched grossly unfair attacks at them.

Finally, the CIA determined that invading Iraq would weaken our alliances, provide a training ground for future terrorists, be the only reason Saddam would ever consider using WMD (if he even had any), would empower Iran, and could lead to the partition of the country. Despite this, they were asked to support a foreign policy strategy their analysts thought would be a disaster. And they did.

When no WMD's were found, the CIA was again asked to take the blame, and a new intelligence agency was established that took away the CIA's responsibility to report directly to the President. Valerie Plame Wilson's identity was exposed and the investigation, not surprisingly, led directly back into the Vice-President's office.

i am deathly sick and tired of having this crap lying around like some cold case file... we, the american public, to say nothing of the rest of the world, deserve to know the truth... half a trillion dollars, a couple of hundred thousand lives give or take, and three and a half years later, we know precious goddam little... it's simply not acceptable...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet