Dan wrote:
There was a pattern of interpreting the evidence in a manner that
provided the greatest and most immediate risk. It was very consistent
with the
"wishful thinking" engineering I've encountered from time to time. At
the time, there was enough information to see that Bush overstated his
case, as I suggested at the time. But, this statement is quite
different....any
reasonable person at the time would know there were no WMD.
They had an agenda, Dan. Before 911. Read the PNAC white paper. Keep in
mind that several members of PNAC went on to become high ranking members
of the Bush administration. Like Vice President and Defense Secretary.
So they have motive and 911 gave them the opportunity. Testimony from
former administration officials like Clarke confirmed how anxious they
were to go after Iraq. The whole WMD thing was never anything but a way
to get congress and the people behind the invasion.
That conclusion was no more likely, given the information available at
the time, than Hussein being a couple of years away from a bomb.
Remember, we later found out that Quadaffy (sp) was a couple of years
away from having a bomb.
As for the yellowcake, the most likely source of the British information
was French intelligence. Now it is possible that the French government
gamed the US, but I think they actually believed the bad data was good.
Let me give a parallel. By showing that Al Gore exaggerates the risks
and the evidence of global warming, you can show that global warming just
doesn't exist.
Let me give a parallel. A scientist proposes a series of experiments in
order to prove a hypothesis. Well prior to the experiment several key
members of his team express an agenda with regards to the hypothesis.
Tests are run, but only the results that favor the agenda are recorded,
those that don't favor the agenda are often the results with fewer
anomalies, but they are ignored just the same. How valid are the results?
The administration used evidence such as the aluminum tubes even though
they knew, _knew_, that the tubes were not suitable for the centrifuges.
They used the yellow cake story in the state of the union speech even
though they _knew_ that there own source had thoroughly debunked the
story. They claimed with certainty that there were connections between Al
Qaida and Hussain even though their intelligence agencies were _certain_
that there was no connection. They were aware that many of their sources
had their own agendas, but they continued to use the tainted evidence
provided by them and ignore more reliable sources. They were able to
direct the actions of the UN inspection team, but time after time that
inspection team cam up empty.
They threw the results of the experiment, and the more we learn, the more
obvious it becomes.
Sorry Dan, but you need to take off the rose colored glasses.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
