At 11:15 PM 5/20/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: >> Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many >> occasions that he agreed with the Bush >> Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, >> that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience >> there, Doug. > >Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate >Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring >evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources? Would Clinton have >commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and >then ignored its results? Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection >regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs?
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. 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. 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. JDG
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
