PERSPECTIVE

I had some time yesterday to watch Mr. Kay's testimony before the Senate panel. He says we were all wrong on the WMDs in Iraq. According to the Washington Times

Weak human intelligence-gathering capability and limited data prevented U.S. intelligence analysts from figuring out that Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the CIA's former chief arms inspector told Congress yesterday.

"It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgment, and that is most disturbing," David Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee...

Iraq was found to be working on chemical, biological and nuclear arms "on a large scale," Mr. Warner said.

Mr. Kay said the Iraqi government's cheating and lying to United Nations contributed to the intelligence failure because it led analysts to jump to false conclusions.

None of the intelligence analysts involved in producing estimates on Iraq's arms told him they were pressured to skew analyses to support policy, Mr. Kay said.

Instead, analysts told him that they had limited information on the arms programs.

U.S. intelligence also lacked human agents on the ground and relied too much on information from foreign intelligence services, he said.

An overemphasis on the use of electronic and photographic intelligence resulted in bad intelligence, he noted.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq's weapons to justify going to war.

Mr. Kay, in his testimony, said it was not the president who had misused intelligence. Intelligence analysts got their assessments wrong and, as a result, "abused" the president.

In another major development yesterday an independent investigation clears Tony Blair and heavily criticizes the BBC for it's reporting that the government had "sexed up"a dossier on Iraqi weapons. The Chairman of the BBC resigned.

A senior appeals judge castigated the British Broadcasting Corp. yesterday for reporting that the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons, vindicating Prime Minister Tony Blair and prompting the resignation of BBC chief Gavyn Davies.

The 700-page independent report by senior judge Brian Hutton also cleared Mr. Blair and his administration of responsibility in the death of David Kelly, a government expert on Iraqi weapons who committed suicide after being exposed as the source of the BBC story.

The document, so bulky that each copy was delivered in a large cardboard box, hammered the publicly funded national broadcaster's standards of reporting and ? most damagingly ? its governors' decision to support the charges made by a senior radio reporter.

"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on [Iraqi weapons of mass destruction] is itself the real lie," a clearly relieved and upbeat Mr. Blair said to huge applause.

So where does that leave us? We've touched on this issue recently. But with the events of yesterday I believe we have a rare opportunity to reframe the issue and come to a civil discourse. And I believe that most reasonable people can understand the concepts at work here.

The President has an awesome responsibility...as does the British Prime Minister (who, by the way, would be classified a "Liberal" in the USA). Neither gets paid enough to shoulder their burdens nor take the abuse heaped upon them by folks who don't have a fraction of the responsibility.

Ultimately the President is responsible for your safety. Mine too. Sure...he has the Defense Department at his disposal to help him handle that chore, but ultimately it is up to him.

And all the intelligence data they could muster said the weapons were there. That included not only our estimates...but those of nations who opposed going to war.

And the information, according to Kay, was wrong. Our intelligence failed.

As Mr. Kay pointed out...our intelligence has failed more recently than over Iraq. In a slip up that is scarier than 100 Iraqs, our intelligence failed to understand the advances made by Iran and Lybia in their nuclear programs...information that has come to light only in the last two months (and in no-small-way a result of our actions in Iraq)

And that is where we need to focus all this energy that is being wasted on the charges of liar-liar!

Now...given how publicly and forthrightly Mr. Kay has expressed his views...I think it would be a good thing for the administration to acknowledge that at this point it in fact does appearthat our intelligence analysts do not have the necessary data to develop good intel. In fact, I'm hoping to see a lot of attention focused on our intelligence capabilities and limitations. Because we're the only big guys in town...we need to get it right.

But enough please of the charges of lying. Because it just doesn't hold water. I want to borrow a technique from Sarah...next time I run across those hollering "liar liar" I want to ask them "are you saying that because you are stupid enough to believe it, or because you believe that I am stupid enough to believe it?

If we could achieve sanity over the lying charges we could have an intellectually honest debate over why the President viewed Iraq as a sufficient threat to go to war over, when his predecessor, who had the same informaton didn't see it as such a threat. That is a fair question and one which can be debated without resorting to playground behavior.

But mostly, I'm very concerned about the intelligence flaws. For it is through the lens of our intelligence apparatus that we evaluate the threats that are out there. We can't afford to have our vision blurred by weak intel.