I woke up this morning to reports that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate says things in Iraq are terrible, and we're worse off than we were before September 11, 2001. That blog post, by the way, isn't entirely fair. After listing severl attacks and attempted attacks, it goes on to ask if there have been any further successful attacks. That's an apple-to-oranges comparison, and leaves out very important attempts.

However, the post redeems itself by linking to another blog:

NIEs have certainly included some major blunders. The 1997 NIE, the last one before the 9/11 attacks on global terrorism, mentioned bin Laden in only three sentences as a "terrorist financier." ... And of course, it was the October 2002 NIE which was a significant factor in the decision to use force against Iraq by famously asserting, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Interesting. The same guys trumpeting this NIE probably disagreed with the last one. Just as those same guys won't ask for an investigation into the person inside the CIA who chose to leak it to the press. It's kind of a pick and choose strategy. It's also why the CIA is prone to fire contractors who claim to be breaking cover on covert operations and then say they were only kidding.

UPDATE President Bush has decided to declassify the executive summary to the NIE. He didn't launch an investigation into who leaked the document, though. According to somebody likely to know, the NIE isn't as gloomy as the press has made it out to be. Then again, a previous NIE said Saddam had WMDs and would get a nuclear weapon by 2010 if we didn't invade.