his panel to study what went wrong with the intelligence surrounding the pre-war period, and it seems relatively well made up. I wonder, though, if the focus has already predetermined an unsatisfactory outcome. They are starting with the assumption that the intel was inaccurate, when in fact the problem is very likely not the intel itself but the interpretation of the information further up.
Supporters of the war have been shrill about it: “Clinton had the SAME information; this action MUST be OK! The only difference is that Bush has BALLS where Clinton had none!!” But that’s the point – Clinton may have had the same info – it’s what was done with it that is at issue. By circumventing built-in controls in the system, the Bush administration made shockingly bad decisions based on information that was as correct – but with little confidence attached – as it had ever been.
So suggesting that it was “bad intel” alone is already beside the point, and dooms the panel to insignificance. Hope not – but it seems to. Last night the Republican guy was already trotting out the well-worn “it has to be above politics” line. Problem is – this whole thing was all about political people making bad decisions with as-good-as-possible information, bad as that always has been.
