by user Laughingskeptic
I have seen innumerable articles in the 'real' newspapers and magazines discussing the various intelligence failures that lead us into the Iraq war. The focus seems to be perpetually on what information was passed up to the White House. What is missing is the investigation into how Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld requested information from these services.
To me it is very clear how a bureaucrat in Defense Intelligence might come to relay less than reliable information up to the President if he knows that this is what the President wants to hear. How else do bureaucrats get ahead other than by telling their bosses what they want to hear? The only way that a President could get an unbiased view is to make sure that no one knows their personal opinion and to seek multiple reliable sources of opinions. I'm pretty sure the Bush Whitehouse asked questions like: 'Show me everything you've got that ties Al Queda to Iraq', there by telegraphing the desired result.
Let's face it. We have a president that was told by God to invade Iraq. Everyone knew what his opinion was. Given the massive bureaucracy that has formed over the last 5 decades in our multiple intelligence services, there is no doubt that sufficient bureaucrats would 'find' the supporting evidence desired. This will always be the case with any given topic.
So how do we eliminate this problem of 'leading questions'? First is we acknowledge that this is a real problem. A second step might be to require that all communications between the executive branch and agencies are shared by various appropriate committees of Congress. The more eyes, the more likely a leading-question situation might be identified.