Before the war, I posted that if WMDs weren’t in Iraq, the CIA wouldn’t plant evidence of them; rather, they would come up with something that could possibly (remotely possibly) be construed by the credulous as evidence of WMDs, and propagandize the find for all they were worth.
My guess was that they’d find empty warheads with traces of chemicals on them that could have been from WMDs. I had no idea that they’d be doing it with trailers instead. My psychic powers must be rusty.
Nonetheless, it’s amazing to me that anyone would put an ounce of faith in the freakin’ CIA’s analysis of this point. Since when did CIA become a credible source of information on highly politically charged issues that have the potential to greatly embarrass the US in the international arena?
I’d sooner trust Fidel Castro than CIA on such matters. At least Castro’s lies aren’t particularly slick.
I dunno, from where I’m sitting, the CIA has pretty much been providing level-headed and reasonably accurate analysis of All Things Iraq for a while now. The CIA did say, before the Iraq war started, that there were no credible ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and that Saddam didn’t have the WMD stockpiles that some folks claimed he did – all of which have been borne out by revelations so far.
It looks to me like the real credibility problem is with the White House, where they slant, twist, and bend the stuff they get from the CIA to suit their own needs.