Intelligence Confusion

Dear Editor,
   I am a slight bit confused here. The president blamed the Iraq invasion on "bad intelligence," and George Tenet and the CIA have been the main scapegoats. Well, Tenet is replaced, so I would assume that the problem is fixed, right? What I want to know is that if the CIA is to blame, why are the Bush spin guys not blaming the FBI, the NSA, military intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and so-called other "foreign sources" that we were told all came to the same conclusion about the "dangerous and immediate threat" line that we were handed two years ago? Either one of two things happened. All of this intelligence did not match (which I believe because it is sheer stupidity to actually believe that all of these bright people at these agencies could be so wrong in a tiny country like Iraq) but the immediate-threat card is the one that was played to Congress for their approval, or the president only listens to the CIA. If the second part were true, which is the excuse that he used, then the problem has been solved and there is no need for this massive new layer of wasteful, very expensive government, right? The reality is that they are creating this agency to cover their tracks and make us think that the administration and the Congress are curing a problem that really didn't exist. This will not provide a cure for leaders that have "selective hearing" when presented with intelligence. In fact it could very well make it worse.