Dan was posing a hypothetical question in which I was Bush (shudder) and the intelligence agencies told me everything on that list. My reply was I didn't accept that the intelligence agencies were saying those things.

Your reply was a very lame dodge, as is the above paragraph. I did not say you had to be Bush. That’s your assumption. In my infinite, benevolent power as scenario creator, I allow “Greg” to preside as president.

Tenet's speech compared to Drezner's analysis of what was said indicates there was a lot of fudging between the intelligence agencies saying there was a chance of non nuclear WMD's being a threat later on and the Bush administration saying they were a big threat (mushroom clouds, etc) in the near future.

The statement was that the warning of an imminent threat (smoking gun) might arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud, and we (the survivors of 9/11) cannot afford to wait for that. Why, Greg, as president of the United States of America, do you now choose to wait for that cloud to materialize?

The UN inspectors were told to leave because it was supposed to be too dangerous to even wait a few months for them to finish. There was no evidence for any of this, there couldn't have been because they didn't exist. Who said they did exist and why? That's what an enquiry needs to determine.

The threat of Iraqi violence was being loudly shouted through the halls of the United Nations, and these threats included vocalizing use of WMD.

In truth, Hussein & Co. were “buying time”. That was the sole purpose of his bluff. He was foolish enough to gamble everything he held dear -- if indeed he ever held anything at all dear -- on the United States of America backing down, as we had so many times during the Clinton administration. We were supposed to. This would have resulted in a complete rethink of the former UN Resolutions, and possibly a lessening of the grip the U.S. and Britain held over Iraqi airspace -- which would have loosened borders, lightened inspections, and allowed Iraq to return to WMD proliferation.

Well, it is apparent that Hussein was weak in the area of plainsman’s poker. He was holding nothing, but continually touted aces in the manner of prepped WMD. We already knew of his rocket technology, with new, illegal thrusters designed for the delivery or warhead payloads across his borders. No, these missiles could not reach the shores of the United States of America, but they could, and eventually would (as promised), reach the crowded cities of Israel, an ally of the U.S., and Turkey, a supporting member of NATO, and an ally of the U.S.

When our neighbors call for aid, we do not merely stand by and allow them to die.

And, yes, members of international terror organizations did regularly pass through Iraq, and not always through Kurdish Iraq, but through the heart of Baghdad. This is according to Iraq weapons inspector David Kay. He was there to see them.

Do you know differently?

The main problem is throughout this whole saga Rumsfeld and co were saying the CIA, etc were too conservative with their analysis and now they are trying to make out the CIA dragged them into this.

The main problem is that intelligence reports were coming in stating Iraq to be an ongoing, gathering threat to Middle East and global peace.

I think what is going to be quite clear in the coming months is the intelligence agencies will not be fall guys for Bush. They'll leak their side of the story, that they didn't advise an invasion as needed, that they didn't say there was a short term threat, and they didn't believe most of what Chalabi said. That's a pretty big difference from what the Bush administration said, so where did they get their information if not from the analysts?

Another lame dodge. In "a few months" will be approx. a year after my above post. I don't think we can wait that long for a response, Mr. President.

I suggest rereading the Kay report -- and turn off the time machine. We're not here yet.

Dan