Finally, someone points out what I have been thinking since Kay's defense of Bush and his ridicule of the CIA. J. Marshall nails Kay to the floorboards with this excellent piece. An excerpt follows:
For months we have known with increasing degrees of certainty that there were, contrary to expectations, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yet the fact that David Kay has now stated this baldly has suddenly put this reality at the center of the national debate in a way it wasn't only a couple weeks ago.
He has also said two other things.
First, he's said that the CIA was not pressured to reach its erroneous conclusions. Second, he has said that rather than the president owing an explanation or apology to the American people, the CIA owes an explanation or apology to the president.
As to the first point, how would he know?
To the best of my knowledge, Kay wasn't involved in any of the relevant inter-agency processes and he hasn't investigated this question after the fact. So how would he know? I think the answer is clear: he doesn't.
The rest is HERE