I'm having just a wee bit of trouble following the logic here.

On the one hand, intelligence analysts involved in assessing Iraq's weapons program insist that they did not alter their estimations because of political pressure, while at the same time acknowledging that there had been attempts to influence them:

There were instances before the war in which intelligence analysts said they sensed pressure to reach certain conclusions, but the House and Senate investigators said there was no indication they bowed to such wishes.

But on the other, we have the curious situation where these same analysts apparently reached those very conclusions that supported the claims the Bush adminstration used to justify the war.

The CIA, congressional intelligence committees, Kerr's team and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are investigating how the CIA analysis missed the mark so widely.

So I think the question must arise: If the analysts were already producing reports which tended to support the Bush adminstration position vis á vis the alleged Iraqi WMD programs, why did adminstration officials feel the need to exert the pressure which the analysts have acknowledged?

"There was pressure and a lot of debate, and people should have a lot of debate, that's quite legitimate," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistent. They didn't change their views."

No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data Probers Say Analysts Remained Consistent

Like so many aspects of 911 and the Iraq invasion, there something here that just doesn't add up - at least to a rational person.

In addition, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile a $30 billion budget for intelligence with the finding of the congressional committee that our "...CIA analysts relied too heavily on outdated, circumstantial intelligence and on information from unreliable informants."

With what I've read of Derek Leebaert's The 50 Year Wound, I suppose I shouldn't be suprised, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, 30 billion bucks is a lot to spend on baloney

S