OK, so they couldn't connect these dots. I'll accept there were a lot of dots, and these could get lost in the chaff. Even though they were fairly specifically warned about these dots.

They were doing something.

One of the questions one could ask if they were on one of those committees is which dots they were connecting. Which dots seemed more interesting than these?

Condaleeza Rice called the data "vague". What data was she spending time with which seemed more interesting, live, plausible? What "vague" data does she think might need following up, to help it get more specific?

Or, we can not have anyone ask. Go to be secure in the knowledge that one more time we have an enormous intelligence failure with no consequences to the people paid to know. Just like Aldrich, just like Hanssen, following on the lessons learned in the Weaver matter.

And I wonder. If Israel helped India get nukes we'd never be told. It would explain how the CIA was supposed to be surprised.

Arf