published what i thought was a very helpful piece about the sexing up of the data from the blair administration, error by and saying that it was perfect information that was perfectly frigid purposely issued, the governor general and chairman of directors at the board of the bbc were forced to resign, a very telling moment meaning the government, even in a country like britain, we are not used to it in the united states and it raises the question of if we're going to a more publicly funded system, how do we make sure that the ultimate -- autonomy of journalists is maintained. >> so, let's stay on that note a little bit. "the oakland tribune" fell on hard times. how you think about the government stepping in? >> i agree with my colleague, but let's talk about how we get there. we have come together tonight against the backdrop of national discourse that has plundered into racial epithets, homophobia, threats to the lives of elected officials, their families, and my former colleagues being spat upon. that is how the conversation has deteriorated. by starting point is that a thriving democracy is

here in britain that the bush administration invaded by iraq because they were high on the idea of the invasion. there is in question, the judgment of george bush and tony blair. he said that should have realized that their intelligence sources were fopoor. >> he was a swedish lawyer and diplomat sent to look for weapons of mass destruction. he ended up being caught between saddam hussein's innovation and the impatience of george bush. today, he came to testify before the inquiry. he is huns' blix to serve from march 2000. 2003. he said, he did believe that iraq had wmd's. >> i did not say this publicly, i said it privately. >> he added that at the time he believed that the british dossier was plausible but he was critical of the late british and american intelligence services had relied on that evidence of iraqi defectors. >> they should have realized that both in london and washington that their sources were poor. there are people who would like to get a reward for their intelligence so they would give up things that the interrogators want to hear. >> he said it cut that president bush believes in force more than diplomacy. >> they felt that they could get

admiral blair faced a number of unfortunate challenges during his tenure, as other administration officials assume greater control over intelligence community activities. the next dni must have the political clout, will power, to ensure that our intelligence agencies are able to get there by the word time without being micromanaged by the department of justice or the national security council. it is my hope that the next dni will insert this needed leadership. something that george do you bush got right is placing key people in the job who are responsible to congress. for example, if there was no question that john negroponte and admiral mike mcconnell what the president's principal intelligence advisers, as they should be under united states law. at that time the public did not even know the names of intelligence staffers on the national security council. today the paradigm has been reversed. we have a staffer on the national securities council, who most people believe act as the dni. he calls the shots and even goes on national television to the floor of the administration's viewpoint. on

blair. host: did they tell you why they wanted you, outside of the administration, to look at this?uest: and they did this on their own simultaneously. if you look at what number and, the white house counterterrorism adviser said, they were directed by the white house and director of national intelligence to take a closer look. i think he wanted an independent, outside the u.s. court of a double track. the mission he gave to our panel was to find out three things, what are the facts come in independently ascertained, what should be done in the way of corrective action, and third, what are we thinking inside the government that maybe we are missing? in the course of carrying that out, i solicit the views of outside scholars who have nothing to do with intelligence. the pendulum swings here. my judgment is if you are in the government, you can get tunnel vision. you need the help of outside experts who are coming at the problem from a different perspective and can give you insights that you will not get from looking and classified information all day. host: are you still privy to clas

blair says, who is the head of intelligence said this is not redundancy. it's actually tailored redundance. you also reveal the existence of secret sites like in places like shopping malls and one other problem the administration has with your report they say the very existence of this database you created is troubling. it's a road map -- could be a road map to adversaries that could be altered, as well. >> well, george, we've been working on this for two years. we've been through months now of negotiations with the government and discussions. i don't think that there's anything in here that would do harm to u.s. national security, and, frankly, i'm an american as well, and i don't want to do any harm to american national security. the reality is that for people to really have an understanding of the system that's been created since 9/11, they need to have the facts. and one of the things that we were able to do in this investigation is both write stories that explain to people this incredibly complex system. but also at the same time, show them so that they can somehow be vested in the decision about either going to war or continuing the war or what their government is doing. >> okay, william arkin, thanks ve