Maybe because it contains gems like this.

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

and this

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

and this

[q...

Maybe because it contains gems like this.

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.

Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.

and this

Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq.

and this

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda - as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision.

and this

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

Why isn't this big news indeed?

Really? Except that Zarqawi was stationed in the NE section of the country and outside of the reach of Saddam Hussein, since the area was controled by the Kurds.

Also on the very first page of the report:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence[b]...

read more»

Really? Except that Zarqawi was stationed in the NE section of the country and outside of the reach of Saddam Hussein, since the area was controled by the Kurds.

Also on the very first page of the report:

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

The lie was not about these nebulous connections but about the threat that Iraq posed and the justification of said threat as a means and reason to invade Iraq. On that score Bush/Cheney lied through their teeth.

But wait, there is more:

Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of [u]Manucher G[b]...

But wait, there is more:

Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.

The conclusion of the report is as follows:

The committee's investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading.

Some of its key findins below:

The committee found that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qaida strike anywhere. The committee also found that Iraq did not provide chemical or biological weapons training or any material or operational support to al-Qaida prior to the war.

Key pieces of evidence used by the administration asserting links between Iraq an...

read more»

The conclusion of the report is as follows:

The committee's investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq has revealed that the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading.

Some of its key findins below:

The committee found that there was no credible information that Iraq was complicit or had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks or any other al-Qaida strike anywhere. The committee also found that Iraq did not provide chemical or biological weapons training or any material or operational support to al-Qaida prior to the war.

Key pieces of evidence used by the administration asserting links between Iraq and al-Qaida were a report of a meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer and a claim that Iraq provided chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaida in the late 1990s. The committee report demonstrates that the prewar statements of the Vice President of the United States that the Prague meeting had been ``pretty well confirmed'' and that the 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta--again the Vice President's words--``in fact'' met with Iraqi intelligence services in 2001 were not substantiated by the intelligence assessment at the time the statements were made by the Vice President. Likewise, the statement by National Security Adviser Rice that``there are a lot of tantalizing meetings'' between Iraq and ``people who were involved in 9/11'' was clearly false based upon what was known prior to the war.

Many participants involved with the preparation of prewar
intelligence felt at the time that the decision had been made to go to war by the administration early on--in fact, many months before Congress was asked to authorize the use of force. The committee investigation revealed evidence that this prewar pressure to conform to administration policy demands may have led to the co-optio

Not to mention the President's own words:

The President said Wednesday, just this week, that:

One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

Well, that shouldn't surprise anybody. The President's decision to ignore intelligence community assessments prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 cost him any credibility he may have had on this issue. President Bush said Saddam and al-Qaida were allies--his words. And that:

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida...

read more»

Not to mention the President's own words:

The President said Wednesday, just this week, that:

One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.

Well, that shouldn't surprise anybody. The President's decision to ignore intelligence community assessments prior to the Iraq war and to make repeated public statements that gave the misleading impression that Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 cost him any credibility he may have had on this issue. President Bush said Saddam and al-Qaida were allies--his words. And that:

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

But wait there is more (with link):

The CIA assessed in January of 2003 that Saddam viewed al-Qaida with ``deep suspicion'' and stated that:

The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other.

And the piece du resistance:

In March of 2003, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said there was a ``very strong link to training al-Qaida in chemical and biological weapons techniques, we know from a detainee that--the head of training for al-Qaida, that they sought help in developing chemical and...

read more»

But wait there is more (with link):

The CIA assessed in January of 2003 that Saddam viewed al-Qaida with ``deep suspicion'' and stated that:

The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other.

And the piece du resistance:

In March of 2003, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said there was a ``very strong link to training al-Qaida in chemical and biological weapons techniques, we know from a detainee that--the head of training for al-Qaida, that they sought help in developing chemical and biological weapons because they weren't doing very well on their own. They sought it in Iraq. They received the help.''Those statements were based on representations of Ibn al Shaykh al-Libi, a detained senior al-Qaida operative. But what the administration hid was the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency did not believe al-Libi's statement. In February 2002, a year before the President claimed that Iraq ``provided al-Qaida with chemical and biological weapons training,'' the DIA assessed that al-Libi ``is more likely intentionally misleading the debriefers.''

Nor did the administration disclose a second DIA assessment in
February of 2002 that said, ``Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin
Ladin any useful CB knowledge or assistance,'' or DIA's April 2000 assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qaida training `anywhere'' in Iraq.
The administration's statements also flew in the face of the CIA's January 2003 assessment that al-Libi was not in a position to know whether training had taken place.

So nice job cherry picking the report, but I wasn't born yesterday, just a few decades before that.

Again, the central lie about Iraq was not whether there was a tangenial terrorist connection or had at one time WMDs, but whether it was a real threat to the

As per your statements above you forgot to add the following:

but they did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.

Postwar surveyors found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from any foreign sources after 1991.

The portion of the ICA was based on "credible US military reporting from a single source" who was described in the Committee previous report as being asylum seeker codenamed CURVEBALL.

And we know who CURVEBALL turned out to be, a drunken liar.

Intelligence assessments,specially prior to the October 2002 NIE that analyst could not confirm that production wa...

read more»

As per your statements above you forgot to add the following:

but they did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.

Postwar surveyors found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from any foreign sources after 1991.

The portion of the ICA was based on "credible US military reporting from a single source" who was described in the Committee previous report as being asylum seeker codenamed CURVEBALL.

And we know who CURVEBALL turned out to be, a drunken liar.

Intelligence assessments,specially prior to the October 2002 NIE that analyst could not confirm that production was ongoing.

though many statements made regarding ongoing production (of WMD) prior to the late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than intelligence judgments themselves.

They lied, especially the VP said that he was certain of many things. So did Donald Rumsfeld.

Prior to late 2002, the intelligence did not collectively asses with any certainty that Iraq was actively producing any weapons of mas destruction.

Cont.

no active underground WMD facilities had positively identified. Furthermore, none of the underground goverment facilities that had been identified were buried deeply enough to be safe from conventional airstrikes.

On the use of UAVs to deliver WMDs:

evidence that Iraqis were modifying UAVs for this purpose (delivery of WMDs) was "unconfirmed, and is not sufficiently compelling to indicate that the Iraqis had done so."

Also the Iraqis never adapted any of their ballistic missiles to carry WMDs either during the Iran-Iraq war or during the First Gulf War, even though Iran did not have an effective counter against a WMD equipped ballistic missile and that t...

Cont.

no active underground WMD facilities had positively identified. Furthermore, none of the underground goverment facilities that had been identified were buried deeply enough to be safe from conventional airstrikes.

On the use of UAVs to deliver WMDs:

evidence that Iraqis were modifying UAVs for this purpose (delivery of WMDs) was "unconfirmed, and is not sufficiently compelling to indicate that the Iraqis had done so."

Also the Iraqis never adapted any of their ballistic missiles to carry WMDs either during the Iran-Iraq war or during the First Gulf War, even though Iran did not have an effective counter against a WMD equipped ballistic missile and that the so called "War of the Cities" was a terror campaign by both sides, to which WMDs would have been suitable.

On a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam:

Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaida had a partnership, or that Iraq provided al-Qaida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Cont.

Statements made by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence.

Furthermore:

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks (against) the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at the time, in part because he feared that doing so would give the US a stronger case for war in Iraq.

So Condi, no smoking guns...

Cont.

Statements made by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence.

Furthermore:

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks (against) the US using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at the time, in part because he feared that doing so would give the US a stronger case for war in Iraq.

So Condi, no smoking guns, Dicky, no mushroom clouds.

This was a blatant lie:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a danger to the United States and to its allies, to our interests.

It is also a danger that is gathering momentum, and it simply makes no sense to wait any longer to do something about the threat that is posed here. As the president has said, "The one option that we do not have is to do nothing."

Whether its mixed or not, the fact that the United States Senate issued a report documenting that the President of the United States knowingly misrepresented false and questionable evidence to persuade the Congress to assent to an armed invasion is huge news. The news - backed by both Republicans and Democrats - is that the President wasn't mistaken; he knew the intel was bad.

Taking the nation to war under false pretenses, thus sacrificing the lives of 4,000 Americans (not to mention the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the millions of other casualties) is impeachable if anything ever has been. If anyone - including the President - can lie his way into cau...

Whether its mixed or not, the fact that the United States Senate issued a report documenting that the President of the United States knowingly misrepresented false and questionable evidence to persuade the Congress to assent to an armed invasion is huge news. The news - backed by both Republicans and Democrats - is that the President wasn't mistaken; he knew the intel was bad.

Taking the nation to war under false pretenses, thus sacrificing the lives of 4,000 Americans (not to mention the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the millions of other casualties) is impeachable if anything ever has been. If anyone - including the President - can lie his way into causing this many deaths with impunity, we all have blood on our hands.

Put it this way: More Americans have died because of George Bush's sin in 2003 than because of Osama bin Laden's sin on 9/11. And in terms of people killed of various nations, Osama bin Laden will never kill a tenth of the people killed under orders of George W. Bush.