> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 10:12 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview > > On 7/29/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... > > Indeed, I'd argue that you have your > > causality reversed - they weren't telling us those things that > > weren't true to justify the war, they were trying to justify the war > > because they were telling us those things that weren't true. > > > Sorry, but I keep reading that over and over, but I can't understand it. > > Try again?
I think I understand what JDG was getting at. He was arguing that the honest assessment of Bush et. al., given the data they had, was that Hussein had been developing WMD for years....dating back to the time when vast areas were declared off limits to inspectors as Presidential Palaces...which totaled thousands of acres I think....this was back in early 1998, as far as I can recall. At the time, Clinton warned the nation that we might need to go to war to stop the WMD development. In the end, he and the British bombed the suspected sites. So, the argument that Clinton thought they had dangerous WMDs, and that the European intelligence agencies thought they had WMDs is accurate. The difference of opinion was over the existence of WMDs, but on the extent of the risk to the world from the WMDs. My feeling at the time was that the sanctions were at least partially effective, and could be made more effective, given the situation after 9-11. I thought it was years before Hussein posed a real threat to world stability. >From what I read at the time, the consensus analysis of the professionals was closer to my view than to Bush's view that we needed to act now. The other side of things, and most important to me, was the difference over how straightforward setting up a democracy in Iraq would be. I feared something, well, more or less along the lines of what happened. AFAIK, Bush bought the Chabali scenario lock stock and barrel. They key point, to me, was when he shelved the State Department plan for recovery for a non-plan of wishful thinking....Chabali would set up a democracy, oil would start pumping at a high rate....supporting the Irqui economy, and we would succeed within a year, with a grateful nation offering us long term bases. My criticism of Bush is not that he lied, but that he used bad technique in evaluating data. I've seen management at companies I worked for do this...cherry picking data that supports their views as the highest quality data and ignoring the rest. One way to look at it is that Bush took a position that was 3-sigma high compared to the nominal evaluation of the risk. The reality was 3-sigma low compared to the evaluation. But, no-one _knew_ this was true. Few thought it logical that Hussein lied and interfered with the inspectors at every turn to hide the fact that he _did not_ have WMD. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
