Here is Jim Hoagland in Sunday's Washington Post, arguing that the intelligence agencies are to blame for the false claims about Iraq's post-Gulf War I weapons capabilities:
Bush and Blair accepted and actually believed the flawed intelligence that their spy bosses and senior aides provided, and then inflated it in their public speeches. Credulity, not chicanery, would be the plea, your honor.
The trouble with this blame-the-CIA argument being advanced by Hoagland, Richard Perle and others is that it represents a 180-switch from the position they had vociferously argued for most of the previous two years. Josh Marshall (also here), Atrios, Daily Kos and Needlenose all provide some of the history to show that what is being said now contradicts what was being said — loudly and often — by these same people as recently as six months ago. (Atrios also links to this piece from Fareed Zakaria, showing how this echoes an earlier hawk/CIA conflict.)
Here's a rough chronology of the Hoagland/Perle argument:
Sept. 2002: The CIA is underrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.
Oct. 2002: The CIA needs to stop claiming that the White House is overstating the threat posed by Iraq.
Early 2003: In the battle between the White House and the CIA, the White House is right and the CIA is wrong: Iraq poses a far more serious threat than the CIA will admit.
Late 2003: Everyone agreed all along about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. There never was a battle over the intelligence between the CIA and the White House.
Early 2004: The CIA overrepresented the threat posed by Iraq, overwhelming the White House in the battle over the intelligence.
What do you suppose they'll try to tell us next?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In