Three scenarios are possible:

Clinton was right in 98 and so is Bush now.

Clinton was wrong in 98 and so is Bush now.

Clinton was right in 98 and Bush is wrong now.

Sure. The one I'm going with is number one. Nice and simple, and accounts for the facts.

Number two will take a lot of explaining, especially from all those politicians and others who heartily agreed with Clinton back then and don't agree with Bush now. It also doesn't say much for our intelligence system as a whole if it's been coughing up phony information for over a decade. What about all the other intelligence we've been basing policy on all those years?

I have no plausible explanation that would account for number three, and no one else here has been able to come up with one either. Screwball ones, yes.

One assumes that each new President does not take office and automatically assume that the entire defense analysis and intelligence of the previous President was totally bogus. So yes, the conclusions of the Clinton Administration on Iraq are relevant to this discussion.