Reframing the question.

Honesty compels me to admit that questions about the Iraq war and President Bush are much more complicated than I previously thought. However, my basic conclusions remain unchanged.

The fairest question to ask is "Was the war justified based on the information available at the time?" A superficial reading of just the CIA reports says yes, it was. But it is essential to look deeper. We now know the reports were flawed. The question is why. I still believe the Bush Administration is to blame, based on the facts I have found.

The Senate Intelligence committee found no evidence of direct pressure by the Bush Administration. For the reports conclusions, look here. But this conclusion is not unanimous. In a joint press conference with Pat Roberts, Senator John D. Rockefeller expressed concerns that the administration exerted indirect pressure by their frequent and public statements about Iraq's confirmed illegal weapons program. (Sorry, I lost the link to the transcript.) Senator Dick Durbin also summarizes his feelings here. The CEIP has compiled a chronological list of public statements by the Administration in this vein.

Couple all of this with Richard Clarke's charges that Bush and Rumsfeld wanted to find Iraq was responsible for the September 11 attacks, and I see a very compelling argument that Bush arranged for the intelligence reports to support war. He did it with Harkonnen-like subtlety. No one will ever be able to prove Bush said "fake this so I can get my war."

The reframed question is: Did Bush want the war and manipulate things to justify it? Look at all the facts, draw your own conclusions.