Saturday Morning Reading

A couple of articles submitted for your approval.

The first, another Murray Waas piece that adds a lot of color as to why it ain't over for Karl Rove. Libby's testimony is a piece of the puzzle, but there are lots of other things in play.(another catch by The Raw Story)

The second is this WaPo piece that provides the gentle reader with this elephant in the room(amongst other things)

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

Why the White House keeps on trotting out this argument always troubles me. I wish I had a timeline for this albatross. I know that it extends a couple of years back at this juncture(as this is pre-java time, my sentences are poorly formed and stunted)

There is more at WaPo regarding other misdirections, most notably by Bush's National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley. Go give it a read. (hat tip to Americablog)