9/11 was a major intelligence failure. During the Clinton administration, the prevailing view was that Saddam was "in his box." That assessment changed very little within the CIA and State Department even after 9/11. In October 2002 the consensus among CIA analysts was still that Saddam was unlikely to commit acts of terrorism. The only caveat was that if the US went to war to depose him, Saddam would respond in a "ferocious" way.
Bush's invasion of Iraq undercut the basic agency analysis of Iraq, which had not changed since 9/11. The fact that they could not see the dangers of Iraq using non-state actors like AQ was a fatally flawed concept. Iraq was and is a central part of the WOT, something the bureacracy refuses to believe. The CIA is still operating on its own paradigm of terrorism. To admit otherwise, would mean acknowledging that its existing policy analysis had left the country exposed to a great danger.
Laurie Mylroie's, Bush vs The Beltway" provides a detailed and well researched look at the infighting that went on and is still going on about Iraq within the USG.
Thanks. I read your reference to this book last night, it is now on my required reading list.
Frankjr posted some links which left my head spinning again. I think the articles he linked to say what you just told me, but this case has gotten so complicated because of the MSM spin my little brain can't keep up with it.