Look! Look! Evidence of Something!
Look at all the crazy responses to this article about how Iraq's foreign minister told the U.S., before the invasion, that Iraq had no WMD.
The proper response to this revelation is: Why should Bush have believed this information? And how do we even properly evaluate that question?
Instead, the responses are: Ha! We knew it all along! This is the stuff of legends!
But, it's not. We already knew Bush had conflicting information. This is not news. This does not tell us whether this information had more credibility than the other information Bush had.
So, in 2002, Tenet told Bush the Iraqi foreign minister said Iraq had no WMD. But, in 2003, Tenet told Bush the WMD case was a "slam dunk." What would you have believed, if you were in Bush's shoes? And be honest. I personally did not believe the WMD evidence, so it's not like I am saying there's only one answer, and that Bush offered the right one.
If Bush had gone the other way around, and believed the foreign minister and not Tenet's conclusions, and we did not invade, and later it was found Iraq did have WMD, and used them against Israel or our troops in Saudi Arabia, the slogan today of the Democratic party would be "slam dunk!," implying that Bush ignored warnings from the CIA. And when Tenet resigned after many years of service, the Democrats would be telling us he was forced out because he was right and Bush was wrong.
And you all know that's true, so don't even bother denying it.
I am not trying to pass the buck to Tenet. Bush made the decision to invade, he believed the intelligence, and the intelligence, by most indications, was wrong. That is his responsibility. But to imply from this that Bush lied, that he knew there were no WMD, is nonsense. A clear view of all the facts shows that Bush had doubts, but that he went with what the preponderence of the evidence, and his primary advisors and closest allies, presented to him.
The proper response to this revelation is: Why should Bush have believed this information? And how do we even properly evaluate that question?
Instead, the responses are: Ha! We knew it all along! This is the stuff of legends!
But, it's not. We already knew Bush had conflicting information. This is not news. This does not tell us whether this information had more credibility than the other information Bush had.
So, in 2002, Tenet told Bush the Iraqi foreign minister said Iraq had no WMD. But, in 2003, Tenet told Bush the WMD case was a "slam dunk." What would you have believed, if you were in Bush's shoes? And be honest. I personally did not believe the WMD evidence, so it's not like I am saying there's only one answer, and that Bush offered the right one.
If Bush had gone the other way around, and believed the foreign minister and not Tenet's conclusions, and we did not invade, and later it was found Iraq did have WMD, and used them against Israel or our troops in Saudi Arabia, the slogan today of the Democratic party would be "slam dunk!," implying that Bush ignored warnings from the CIA. And when Tenet resigned after many years of service, the Democrats would be telling us he was forced out because he was right and Bush was wrong.
And you all know that's true, so don't even bother denying it.
I am not trying to pass the buck to Tenet. Bush made the decision to invade, he believed the intelligence, and the intelligence, by most indications, was wrong. That is his responsibility. But to imply from this that Bush lied, that he knew there were no WMD, is nonsense. A clear view of all the facts shows that Bush had doubts, but that he went with what the preponderence of the evidence, and his primary advisors and closest allies, presented to him.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment