Second, "its complicated" is a terrible excuse. Lots of things are complicated, this election was really complicated to some people too.
Third, yes, the leadership changes as the CIA director (and lots of the people who work for him) are political appointees. More evidence that they are politically motivated if they ever make any public claims w/r/t the election (which, btw, they haven't actually).
Fourth, I did not suggest that, you read into my statement. My point is purely that we should not accept the word of the CIA (if they ever actually speak about this, and its not just "anonymous sources") at face value and should question and that their historical accuracy should be a factor in that deliberation.
Second, my argument isn't "it's complicated". My argument is that the CIA of 2002 wasn't unanimously in support of the claim that Hussein had weapons programs. The DoD and VP's office, on the other hand, clearly were.
Your third point concedes my argument without rebutting it.
Your fourth point knocks down a straw man.
Second: the CIA's role in the Iraq is complicated, and apparently significant numbers of senior people inside CIA were opposed to the case made for Hussein's weapons programs. Most of what I've read suggests that DoD and the VP's office was the primary driver for the war and for the perspective on intelligence supporting it. A good book here is Gellman's _Angler_.
Third: "the CIA" isn't a single monolithic thing and, in particular, the leadership at CIA changes dramatically across administrations --- as, in fact, it did within the Bush administration (similarly: Bush's first-term DoD leadership bears little resemblance to Robert Gates's DoD).
Fourth: the argument you're making is an essentialist one --- suggesting as it does that if CIA was ever wrong about anything, then that is dispositive evidence that the CIA is always wrong. But that's an absurd rhetorical position to take. If it's the case that CIA is uniformly (or, perhaps, in some Byzantine fashion) wrong, you have to support that claim with more evidence.