Regarding the following post, Mark Kleiman points out a WaPo story in a similar vein that I'd missed, along with a Slate article offering an interpretation of the CIA statements, and asks the following questions:
How much does it weaken our operational capacity in dealing with al-Qaeda if intelligence analysts aren't free to speak the truth about what we know, and don't know?
How much does it weaken the cacacity of our government to persuade Americans and others to support its actions if the President makes public statements based on documents known to be of dubious provenance?
Weren't the actual reasons for going to war with Iraq strong enough, without inventing reasons?
(continued in the next post)