JDG wrote:
I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue.
Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same
intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating
intelligence as a "black box." They weren't saying "I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find> out." The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN. We knew Iraq had
WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring
sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated.
One of the reasons we keep talking past each other is because you continue to use the phrase "knew" when in fact you should be saying "we thought we knew". In fact we didn't know as recent events have demonstrated. Another is that you keep using events that occurred 20 years ago, prior to the fist war (and with the tacit approval of the Republican administration at the time) to justify the second war. Furthermore, we've seen time and again that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and continued to use discredited information long after other administration officials had admitted that the information was false.
Bush approached the situation in Iraq with tunnel vision once he had found his justification in 911. When he should have been concentrating on the overall anti-terror picture his mind was set on Iraq and little else.
Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq.
While this may be true it in no way justifies invasion. It justified the inspections that were taking place prior to the war and which were proving effective. They were not the instant gratification Bush was hoping to achieve with the invasion, but they don't have the baggage that came with the invasion and they could conceivably been used to force other internal reforms.
I know you'll probably scoff at that last, but it's my opinion that gradual changes are more effective and less disruptive than abrupt ones. At this point I think that the very best we can hope for is a state similar to Iran, with a hatred for Israel (the site of yet another Bush disaster) and western society in general and the U.S. in particular.
The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are
naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same
knowledge of the truth.
I'm relatively certain that Clinton would never have brought in a fox to asses whether or not it was a good idea to raid the hen house.
-- Doug Slow and steady wins the race maru
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
