I looked at that CIA report, JaTo. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see any information in there that speaks to the reliability of the "evidence" in the report. In other words, it does not tell us where the information comes from, whether it can be verified, who supplied the information, and so forth. (You can be sure Bush got something much more detailed than this report)
To use the example in my last post, it's like having several witnesses who claim they heard the defendant state his intention to commit fraud, but having no information by which to judge the credibility of those witnesses. We don't know if they are friends of the plaintiff, or convicted felons, or the Dalai Lama. Likewise, we don't know if the "witnesses" the CIA relied on are axe-grinding exiles, former Baathists angling for clemency, or the Pope himself. We don't know whether the CIA's statements about the various industrial sites are from unbiased witnesses, or from half-stoned goat-herders.
It's so easy to throw together a lot of alarming claims (and pictures, too!), but they don't prove anything unless you can assess their reliability. With this report, we cannot assess the reliability of the evidence at all. (Note: that doesn't make it a bad report - I know the CIA can't reveal its sources. It just makes the report useless to prove your point that Bush didn't lie.)
I also had a problem with the tone of the report. It reads like it is trying to persuade the reader, like it has an agenda. Not like a straightforward, factual, impartial intel analysis. I smell administration pressure on Tenet to produce the goods Bush wanted.
You boldy stated that the report proved the CIA had strong evidence of WMDs, but it doesn't prove that at all. The report is a summary of evidentiary points, but it does not address the STRENGTH of the evidence.
Unless you can prove the CIA had STRONG, RELIABLE evidence of WMDs in Iraq, I will conclude that Bush lied when he told us there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs.
