I have read the whole report, at least, as far as the end of section IV (pg 125) it actually cointains very few surprises. It's all pretty much as the MAINSTREAM MEDIA has reported it. Prewar intelligence about both WMDs and Saddam/Al-Quaida connections were pretty sparse and contradictory, and have proven for the most part to be wrong by subsequent intelligence gathered since the end of the war. No one can really be blamed for this, after all, it is the bad guy's job to keep his secrets from us and our guy's job to be as suspicious as possible about what the bad guy is up to. What I do notice is a tendency for the intelligence to become more and more exaggerated the closer it gets to the Oval Office, with contradictory or dissenting views being shut out of the loop until everyone is in agreement with the official version except reality.

On the other hand, it's no massive right-wing conspiracy either, sorry lefties, no smoking guns or dastardly plots revealed here, just guys trying to do the right thing and making the wrong choices every single time, probably because they want to believe it so, so bad since it fits in so neatly in their world view. Still, I don't think that if I were in their shoes I would have done any better. It's always easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback.

Both sides will probably be accusing the other of a whitewash, but consider the Committee is totally bi-partisan (8 Reps and 7 Dems counting the Republican chairman). I haven't read the post-report back-biting at the end, and I probably won't, I'll just let the part they all signed off on speak for itself. As far as those documents and testimonies that were not allowed to be admitted into the hearing, they are no doubt counterbalanced by the "unjustified classifications" the Committee complains about from the intelligence agencies and that's probably to cover their own incompetent ass more than anything else.

Do I think this will settle the issue? Probably not, I don't know how true any of this is, after all, we're talking war and espionage and politics here, but I do strongly suspect the report is as fair as the people involved in it could make it, and from what I've read so far, I'm inclined to accept it.

Anyway, don't take my word for it, and don't trust the pundits. Tom gave us a link, download the .pdf and read it at your leisure.