The failure of the FBI and CIA to share information on the terrorist-threat, prior to 9/11, is proof enough to anyone with a brain that the intelligence community is a mixed-bag of extreme competence, dedicated agents, combined with bureaucratic in-fighting, corruption and empty suits. It has always been so, according to my reading on the matter, which includes histories and biographies of these agencies, J. Edgar Hoover, and a crapload of novels involving the OSS, KGB, Gestapo, MI-6 and all the rest of the agencies at work since people started keeping track of "spies." Last year, I read a couple of books on Civil War spies, one fiction(John Jakes) and one a transcript of a Union spy's journal. You can read an online transcript of a different Union spy's reports, here: http://asms.k12.ar.us/armem/carpent/journal.htm
One thing that stands out, from all this reading, is that intelligence work is a very dangerous, treacherous, and often unreliable piece of any war effort, despite the many well-publicized intel-successes. British intel during the Cold War was rife with double agents, sympathetic to the communist cause. We found out, several American agents were compromised over the years, taken in by the offer of riches and sex from Soviet agents.
The CIA did great early work in assessing the situation in Vietnam, an era I have had special interest in for a long time, but their intel was distorted/ignored by a series of administrations, from Kennedy's to Nixon's. They knew early on, for example, that the South Vietnamese Army was hopelessly infested with Communist spies and sympathizers, and could never be trusted as an ally or a stand-alone fighting-force. The CIA also warned Washington in no uncertain terms about the "all hell about to break loose," prior to the Tet Offensive of '68, and even predicted the enemy would suffer "staggering losses," but that the extreme escalation in American casualties would sap the will of the American people and erode the support at home for the war. They called that one, alright. Fat lot of good it did.
I'm positive, that nothing much has changed in that world, and that future revelations and historical investigations of current events will show similar intel successes and failures, with various governments' bureaucratic incompetence, internecine warfare and confusion creating a long list of egregious War On Terror fu@kups. We've also had a lot of wins, though. That's the game.
You say, "Both Pakistani and British officials were none to pleased by the actions." Well, which ones? Which factions? There are more factions in Pakistani and British politics than there are mice in a granary, and we don't have nearly enough cats to keep tabs on them all. You also say, "Rice admitted the administration revealed his name to the press." What does that prove about anything? Doesn't say a thing, about why, or how Khan's usefulness had expired or been compromised, or eclipsed by the opportunity to arrest a host of interconnected terrorists. We may have averted a huge pre-election blast in NYC, thanks to the publicizing of the intel found in Khan and his associates' computers and possessions. Was it worth it, in order to save thousands of American lives, to sacrifice one Islamist-sympathizing mole? I would say so. I would also say, in regards to all this talk about "sympathisizing," that "you can find "sympathy" in the dictionary between "sh**" and "syphilis." That had to be said, for some reason.
As for "the fiasco in Iraq," well, that story is still being written. It's like the first quarter, of a four-quarter football game. No doubt, there were errors made, by a host of international intelligence communities, but we were also correct about a lot of things along the way. Going back to the first Gulf War, we discovered during post-battle inspections that Hussein had been far closer to his coveted nuclear bomb than we suspected, at least publicly. We just as easily could have found a trove of suitcase-nukes, or a stockpile of U-235 ready for duty, after the invasion last year. We may yet...we're finding out more and more every day, about different aspects of the former regime's secret dealings with the French, Russians, Chinese, etc. We know there were intelligence-ties to Al Qaeda, and other terror-groups on the same side(Islamist terror).
Don't be so quick to dismiss the Iraq mission as a "fiasco," also, just because the current "Tet Offensive" of Sadr's militia and other Iranian/Al Qaeda/Syria-backed terror-groups are inflicting casualties in a steady trickle on coalition troops. We aren't about to "cut and run," despite what you may have read or heard. The stakes are far too high.