[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "we saw the same intel" argument put to rest

[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly. In fact, Congress has less of a pass now that we know that raw/lightly developed intelligence is withheld from Congress. They can't hide behind the "we didn't see the real intelligence" excuse. How can you be mislead when you have access to the best intel and still vote for the authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

You somehow miss the point. The minor revelation of sorts here is that the admnistration assured the packaging of contradictory or relatively uncertain raw intelliegence to appear much more ceratin in the report given to Congress.

I blamed many of our representatives for reading just the five pages summery and not investigating enough through the intelligence commitees. A subtle admnistration sleight of hand appears present, but really its the inherent aspects of a buearocracy which sort of ensured a biased intelligence picture given administration directive. The administration policy was "find Iraq evidence related to 9/11" and not "lets find out if any states supported 9/11." Of course after that directive you try to find evidence to please your bosses and you lose the balanced or accurate picture.

Pure ideology tends to lead to bad policy. And like an old econometrics professor once said: "a data set is like a human being: if your torture it enough, it will tell you what you want to know."