Pilar's article doesn't occur in a vacuum. I do think he assumes he is writing to an educated reader familiar with events- and considering where the article is printed, that's probably a fair assumption.
I don't think he is saying the CIA says it is a four. The CIA gives you the 2's (or perhaps it is fairer to say the CIA gives you several sets of data, and it's your job to decided what function fits the data sets- since it is more complicated than addition). What he is saying is that in this case it is certainly HIS opinion that 4 was the answer, and that the administration went wildly astray in its calculations. Considering what we've heard since, from the crumbling justifications for the war, to the errant estimates for its cost, and the implausible scenarios for "reconstruction", I think it's fair for someone to take the position that this administration really can't add. I don't see any inference in the article that the administration can use only CIA approved data. Although one would hope the data had to go through some screening process no matter where it came from.
While the CIA may have made mistakes, they do not seem to be the kind of mistakes that led to war- since it was apparent from the Downing Street Memo that Bush had decided on war without this evidence, and that he was simply collecting evidence that matched his plans. While this may not bother people who thought the war with Iraq had purposes other than the protection of the US from close and present danger, it was sold to the American people on the back of a "threat" to the US. It is no surprise that enthusiasm for the war would dry up as soon as it became apparent that the sales campaign for the war was a sham. I don't see the CIA as terribly responsible for this problem, since they weren't really interested in selling the war to begin with.
I am sure that the CIA does not want to go down with the Bush ship. Since the CIA didn't really buy off on Bush's plans (and in retrospect that makes them seem a bit more on the ball then Bush), it makes sense that they don't want to suffer unduly for Bush's mistakes. I think if you read up on what happened you'll find that some of the CIA product was high quality and some was low. There is a problem with consistency in the agency, but that is true of any large bureaucracy. I certainly wouldn't argue the CIA smells like a rose, but I would argue there are smellier folks than the CIA.
As for the oil for food scandal being an excuse for war? No way. Americans would never buy it. This war could never, in a million years, have been sold on that basis (or on the basis of liberating the Iraqis). I think the outrage that many people feel is that the only bases for the war left standing, are bases the American public and the congress would never have used for a war, much less a preemptive war. That's a huge problem- and not one that can be laid at the door of the CIA. |
