This is an entry I posted at
http://thecounterpoint.blogspot.com/
If you consider that there has been a long-range plan to reposition American military assets, including sea and land bases, in the Persian Gulf region, that Saudi Arabia has proven inhospitable, that the island of Guam isn't big enough and neither are Qatar or Kuwait, then you might conclude that the pressure on Iraq had more to do with softening them up to make them receptive to the fourteen military land bases that have been planned and are now being constructed. You might also opine that the policy developers in the Pentagon had grown impatient with Saddam Hussein's recalcitrance and ANY excuse for taking aggressive action was to be welcome.
If so, then the failure to pay close attention the NIE is easily explained by the recognition that it was just a smoke screen, or perhaps a fig leaf, to disguise the real agenda.
In my mind, the absolute absence of even a trace of WMD in Iraq suggests that Saddam had the place scrubbed clean in order to show up the U.S. policy as a fraud.
What I further suspect, if my hypothesis has merit, is that the provoked uprising in Iraq will continue until the countries in the region run out of patience and agree that it might be a good idea for the Americans to bring in their military assets on a permanent basis, especially if they continue to pay through the nose for the messes they are creating.
I find it interesting that, under the guise of challenging the Administration's attitude towards nuclear proliferation, the possibility of Saudi acquisition of nuclear arms is being surfaced. If Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel all have nuclear weapons, what better reason do we need for the Americans to sit in their midst and keep the peace?