Hmm, cake. Can I have it, and eat it too?

OpinionJournal has a great article on the campaign by the CIA to discredit Bush by saying that they predicted the current situation in Iraq. Most of the article is a well-written look at what is wrong with the CIA trying to influence an election.

The most interesting part, though, is at the end of the article, where they point out that predicting guerrilla warfare in Iraq in Iraq is only mentioned in one sentance of the report - which also predicted a ton of things that didn't happen:

sectarian violence, seizure of the oil fields in the north by Kurds and in the South by Shiites, a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and the possible use by Saddam of "chemical or biological weapons against his own people and coalition forces.

What? Is the CIA also saying that they predicted that there were WMD's in Iraq - or at least enough likelyhood to be concerned about them? It can't be both ways - either BUSH LIED about WMD's, or he was acting on information that intellegence agencies like the CIA had. Those who disagree with the war can't pick and choose - if they thought that the CIA information saying that the war would be risky should have been followed, they can't fault the belief of the CIA and Bush that Saddam had WMD's.