In the context of the election, the real issue we have always been dealing with is not whether or not the CIA's information was accurate,* but whether, given the information available from the CIA and other intelligence agencies prior to the war, the decision to go to war was a valid one.

Two consecutive administrations came to the conclusion that Iraq was a potential danger based on information known at the time.

There were two possible scenarios:

1. The intelligence on his weapons and terrorism contacts could be wrong. This would indicate that Saddam was contained by the mighty United Nations, posed no threat, and never would.

2. The intelligence on his weapons and terrorism contacts could be right. This would indicate that Saddam did in fact have secret weapons programs. He had them before, and used them. If he also had contact with terrorists, this would be a lethal combination.

There are risks both ways.

If you attack a nation that did not pose a threat to America or its allies, you are attacking it for nothing, at the cost of many lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians. Not to mention billions of dollars. (we have already apparently established on this board that freeing 25 million people from a tyrant is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.)

If you do not attack a nation that turns around and drops nerve gas or anthrax in a major American city, you lose many American civilians, and incur financial impacts far greater than what a war would cost (the cost of the 9/11 attack was close to $100 billion in New York alone. The total financial impact on America was far greater.)

If you are lucky, you guess right. You leave a nation alone, and nothing happens. Or you attack one, and uncover weapons stockpiles and secret plans to use them. Do you feel lucky?

The CIA gives you information that might be accurate. Scary information. But it might not be accurate, too.

If you are not absolutely certain, which way do you go? Clinton thought that Iraq was armed to the teeth based on the same information. So did a hell of a lot of other people and nations, although to hear some of them now, you'd think they'd known the contents of this report for the past two years.

Given this situation, it's not that easy for a reasonable person to fault Bush for making the decision he did at the time he made it. The Democrats see this, which is why they have to somehow turn this around so that Bush is personally responsible for the bad information he got. This is why you're seeing this drumbeat about "administration pressure" right now from the Left.

Pressure the report insists did not occur.

.

*Outside the context of the election, the accuracy of the CIA is critically important, more so than who wins the election. Our national security depends on it.