Probably the same sources that had the Demo's convinced. No?

John H

Sources that report to the Executive Branch. Wonder who's in charge of that?

Was Tenet a Bush appointee?

John H

Not important. The head of the Executive Branch must be able to assure that all
of his underlings are doing a proper job. It is his responsibility to exercise
judgment and replace those underlings who will not serve him or the public
well.

No doubt the CIA did convince a number of people that SH was sitting on a
bulging pile of nasty weapons and ready to go nuclear any moment. It's always
tough to prove a negative, and that was the position that Iraq was in. We felt
we didn't have to prove they had the weapons, but left them the rather
impossible task of proving that they did not.

*If* Bush was taken in by the CIA, he lacks the ability to control his own
department- so how the heck can he be considered capable of running the
country?

*If* Bush (or more specifically his handlers)
knew the information coming from Scott Ritter and the UN inspectors was
credible and still adopted the position that all the information coming from
Iraq was bogus unless it agreed with the Bush agenda- once again that speaks
badly of his character and motivations.

Why couldn't the Bush crowd have come forward with a genuine argument? Example:
"We believe that Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq is a destabilizing influence in
the middle East. We believe that Hussein is murdering large numbers of
Iraqi citizens. We believe that there may be terrorists hiding in Iraq. We feel
that it is incumbent on the United States to go there and clean house."

Well, the reason is pretty simple and it explains the misuse and deceptive
repackaging of the truth: The UN. Even though we strutted around and dismissed
the UN as "irrelevant" early last year, the WMD story gave us a weak link to
credibility under the terms of Iraq's surrender after Gulf War I. It will be
easier to implement the strategies of the NAC crowd if the UN doesn't oppose us
too much, too early.