I said the CIA was incompetent at the highest levels on the issue of WMD. Tenet endorsed the WMD in Iraq theory himself, Bob Woodward publically reported as much in "Plan of Attack" and it's also echoed in "Cobra II" and "Fiasco". The later being the book I consider the most reliable recording of the first two years of the war at the theater level. I don't believe it to be manipulation but probably negligent selective favoring of information supported by intel from some NATO assets. I have other first and second-hand knowledge I'd rather not go into, but that's my position.
I don't believe I said that. I said it was incompetent on the issue of WMD. One would have to ask why the 'manipulator' would then send over special assets, different services and Fed agencies send search teams and CENTCOM divert whole companies of soldiers, Marines, Seabees and EOD to search for what they knew was non-existent.
Thanks. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. I have not had the chance to read "Fiasco".
I just find it suspicious that the CIA analyst 'Joe' provided his report on the aluminum tubes less than three months after Bush supposedly told members of his administration to find him a way to remove Saddam. Or that there were were warnings from the CIA about Curveball's information, and requests not to use it. Why would the CIA wrestle away al-Libi from the FBI in order to use interrogation techniques that the CIA itself says produces what detainee thinks you want to hear, in order to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? What about the Downing street memo commenting that intelligence and fact were being fixed around the policy of military action in Iraq? What about when Cheney and Libby started meeting directly with CIA analysts and subsequent CIA resistance to back weak intelligence?
I'm just finding it hard to accept that it was all just incompetence and no manipulation. I appreciate your opinions on the subject.