Id tend in the direction of bungling megalomaniacs kept afloat by big money than evil genii - (I enjoyed that exchange btw SUe & guest)
either way though - if its a question of credibility? Id say the WhiteHOuse.

the facts
lets face it: the pretense for going to war was WMDs and the immediate threat to the west. when the wmds failed to appear (and as David Kay said they are not likely to appear) the focus became Iraqi freedom and democracy - but then the US is handing over power before free elections can be held - so forget democracy. Now they are saying
it doesnt matter about WMDs because Saddam was a bastard and the world is better off without him.

at the same time a CIA agent that infiltrated and exposed the nuclear black market operated by AQ Khan the pakistani father of the bomb - and the worlds most dangerous nuclear proliferator
sharing nuclear secrets with Libya, Iran and North Korea (hey isnt that the axis of evil - and pakistan our key ally against it?)

(who was immediately pardoned by Musharraf an unelected dictator). Even though Teribus tried to refute it - I didnt hear any complaints from the white house - and even minimal coverage in the press-

- wasnt the original focus of the war on terrorism - nuclear proliferation and the axis of evil - and are we safer after 9/11
with 2/3 of Alqaeda eliminated - well in the 30 months after 9/11
the attacks around the world increased and up to 1950 people have been killed. Compare that with the 30 months before 9/11.