Yes, I noticed that paradox as well. First, Tenant took responsibility for Bush's uranium from Niger claim, even though he indicated at the time that the information was tenuous. He subsequently, as I recall, indicated that the WMD stuff was very equivocal. Now, we have this "slam dunk" talk. Which is it?

Many people have argued that if Bush had been honestly misled on what our intelligence knew about WMD in Iraq, heads should have rolled--probably Tenant's, for starters. Bush's support for Tenant, despite the colossal blunder of U.S. intelligence, leads one to believe that some sort of deal has been struck by them.

Actually, I believe that it mattered not to Bush what the intelligence said--we now have several witnesses, such as O'Neil and Clarke, who assert that Iraq was on the agenda almost immediately after the inauguration.