WMDs and Iraq

Looks like the inspectors were only able to find evidence of WMD programs but not stockpiles. Nuclear is hard to do so that isn't so surprising. But the biologicals and chemicals is a bit surprising. Their missile program was more advanced than expected. But overall, there was much less there than the intelligence suggested. What happened?

Almost all intelligence agencies thought they had them. The Clinton Administration didn't say anything all that different than the current Bush Administration.

David Kay was on the Today Show this morning. (UPDATE: Transcript over at Free Republic) Kay argued that the intelligence was inaccurate and the blame should fall on the agencies not on the political leaders who have to act on the information. He also mentioned that intelligence *underestimated* how advanced Libya's and Iran's programs are. In the end, intelligence gathering is not foolproof. He believed that Hussein was probably misled by the underlings who claimed more progress on WMDs programs than actually was accomplished. It was like a fascade with the appearance of an active program but really was just an empty shell with nothing much inside.

Will this hurt the Bush Administration?

The Democrats are piling on using it as a bat to beat on Bush. I'm sure it will sway some voters but post-9/11 most voters will understand Bush's decision making. Nonetheless, investigations on what happened on the intelligence side are reasonable.

Some have said Bush 43 was doing unfinished business for Bush 41. In the end, the Iraq war could cost Bush 43 re-election. Bush 43 could have easily decided it was politically too risky to do the Iraq war if re-election was all he cared about. But in the post-9/11 environment, he must have felt he had to take action.

My guess is that the re-election campaign will be a tough one partly due to Iraq and partly due to the economy and the reality we have a divided nation politically (red state-blue state). The last person to garner a majority of voters was George H.W. Bush back in 1988. Clinton never cleared 50% and Bush won without winning the popular vote (though the early declaration of Florida to Gore probably suppressed Bush turnout in the rest of the country) but Nader garned enough votes so that neither Gore nor Bush could get 50% + 1.

Will Nader run again? Will some other figure opt out and make a third party run?