As far as chemical WMDs are concerned "US Intelligence" got it right.  Iraqi nuclear weapons are another story.  The UN nuclear advisory team on the ground in Iraq, before the GW II, were correct in their assessment that Iraq was not building an A bomb. 

 

 I think it was Saddam's intent to bring his nuclear attack program back on line after the embargo ended and his oil revenues were recouped.  If correct, then the invasion of Iraq was not a mistake.  The likely failure of GW II is due to the incompetence of the operational generals and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq during the early phase of the counter-insurgency war. 

 

Thomas Rick's "Fiasco" came to the same conclusion I did.

I'd disagree. I think that our intelligence failed in Iraq. The CIA's job was to determine whether or not WMD were present, and their assessments based on the information collected was wrong. However, it is also clear that many other countries to include Arab states believed that Saddam had WMD, so the CIA was not alone.

If you look at the information they had at the time then there assessments was correct. Add in the information they got after entering Iraq they were wrong.
People think it a matter of just getting facts. It's not, it's where and who the facts come from, how often there correct etc.

Someone can give you all the right information but if he's only right 10% of the time how much credit do you give his information. If someone's been right 90% of the time how much credit do you give his information.

Without beening there you do not know the correct answer. Intelligence does not tell you what is, it tells you what is most likely. Without being able to inspect inside Iraq all you could do was put the facts together, rate them as to how correct they've been before and say this is most likely.

The fake gun illistratioin is a good one in my mind.  Was Saddam just tring to bluff Iran or was he also tring to split the west. Baiting some people and leaving others unconvinced.  In that way he might expect to explote pre-existing splits western nations and agencys as well as splits between them.  It is a kind of atack. Psycological, informational or political?  He might want to increase the suport for the Food For Oil program and peoples willingness to let him cheat even more by portraying the U.S. and Hawks in any country as paranoid, dishonist and dangerious.  Then helping corution in the U.N. etal. that help Saddam in more than a rought to dirty moeny it is a cry for justice and a cival disobedent act against the evals of war and corporut power.  Face it Saddom's intelegence servaces read our press.

 

Imagine you are competting with some one at work for a promotion.  He gives you just a little reason to belive that he is stealing moeny and bribing people.  Mabey he get you alone and tells you to back off because he is cheating and will win.  Back off and he wins but if you tell people what he said you look like a nut fabrocating a story with out hard evedence.  You had a self intrest in make him look bad and your no longer to be trusted.

 

The atack worked.  It has disrupted western intelegence and military funtions.  What Saddam was betting against happened thought.  Some people were willing to look bad as the nessary price of bumping him off.  It could have been different.

 

My concern is that the CIA has the state department desease and thinks they are there to protect the world from the Comander in Cheif.  If your spys can publicly atack you and get a book deal out of it and they have so many "union/buracratic" protections that you can remove let alone punish them we have a problem.  Each party starts it's own intel shop and away we go.