It all some how reminds me of an episode of "Yes, Minister". The people providing this intelligence were not political appointees but career bureaucrats; for example, Tenet was appointed assistant director of the CIA by Clinton. Not saying that to put any blame on Clinton, but to show what I mean. In that situation no one need be forced to lie. Once it was decided that Saddam was bad and had to go, what career bureaucrat would have been anxious to provide information that didn't support the decision? Or go against the general trend of opinions under all the pressure associated with putting the State of the Union Address together? Can't you see Paul Eddington in this situation, worried but going with the tide, not objecting strenuously to what was in the speech but leaving himself an out in case it all goes wrong?

That doesn't make Bush any less responsible for the final decision but it might excuse him being more direct about what went wrong. Can you imagine how hard it was to get the facts once the bureaucrats started scurring for cover? Been on both sides of that one, and it's never pretty.