Rantingprofs worries about quick action

While I agree with her concerns, I think one needs to keep in mind that it takes an act of Congress (literally) to get major changes in our intelligence infrastructure funded. So, while the presidential race may motivate the President to issue a flurry of executive orders in an effort to be seen "doing something", there really isn't anything substantial that he can do without congressional oversight and, more importantly, funding approval.

Since the SICR and the 9/11 reports contradict each other with regard to the "answer" to "fixing" the intelligence "problems" (or even what the problem is - failure to "connect the dots"? or "group think"? - though one wonders, if the problems is really that bad in light of the recent terror alerts), and I also agree that we need a good, robust debate. I think we will have one.

There are many entrenched parties that have an interest in maintaing the status quo, but an urgency to "do something" may overcome all that and actually get some substantive changes done (a la the Homeland Security Department, which never would have been possible without the urgency created by 9/11). However, there won't be any substantial changes without robust debate. Congress simply won't allow that to happen (nor, probably, without lots of political infighting, some compromise and some really ugly pork barrel projects as well.)

None of this would be as big a problem as it is if the SICR hadn't insisted that the intelligence community "got it wrong" on the single issue of WMD. And frankly, I still don't think the jury has come in on that one. It may take several years before we know what really happened to Iraqi WMD, and in the end, the intelligence services may turn out to have been right all along. What will we say then, if we've dramatically altered intelligence based upon false assumptions?

After all, it's a bit hard to swallow that every intelligence service in the world was wrong about Sadaam's WMD. Isn't that an admission that Sadaam outsmarted the entire world? Furthermore, it argues that, while having gotten rid of all his weapons, Sadaam still refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors. Rather incongrous, wouldn't you say?

I'm more inclined to believe that the intelligence services were right all along, that the WMD still exist (most likely in Syria and perhaps Iran as well) and that time will vindicate not just the US intelligence community but every other one, including the British, French, Egyptian, Israeli, German and Russian services, all of whom reported that Sadaam still had WMD. Should we really accept the conventional wisdom that all these services were wrong? Or should we be just a bit leery about believing there was such a colossal, worldwide mistake?