February 2, 2004
SORT OF MYSTIFYING:
Ex-Arms Inspector Now in Center of a Political Maelstrom: The testimony of David A. Kay, the arms inspector who changed his mind about the existence of unconventional weapons in Iraq, has stunned official Washington. (CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS, 2/02/04, NY Times)
He is puzzled by the administration's response to his testimony. Senior officials have clung to statements that the inspections are continuing and therefore inconclusive."I'm sort of mystified," Dr. Kay said. "Quite frankly, the easier political strategy would be to say, `Look, everybody agrees that we're better off with Saddam Hussein gone, but on the other hand, it's clear that not all our advance information was good.' "
In an hourlong phone conversation on Thursday, Dr. Kay said he had been taking calls from old high school chums and several intelligence officers who are friends, but had not heard a peep from the White House or from George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence.
He described the intelligence breakdown as a systems failure and said only an independent investigation would be able to set things right. He warned of "the difficulties we have of closed orders in secret societies to reform themselves."
Despite all the commotion he has caused — in an election year, no less — Dr. Kay sees an opportunity to overhaul an intelligence service that has stumbled badly for years.
For some, Dr. Kay's candor makes him nothing short of a hero.
"Not only does he say he was wrong, but he is willing to tackle the institutional questions of being in error," said Frank J. Gaffney Jr., the president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. Mr. Gaffney urged President Bush to swallow any annoyance he might feel and ask Dr. Kay to replace Mr. Tenet in his job.
Yet for others, Dr. Kay's honesty stopped short of the White House gates. Administration critics have accused the president and his advisers of exaggerating intelligence reports, cherry-picking data that was most helpful to their war strategy and pressuring analysts to view Iraq as an imminent threat. Dr. Kay holds that, based on the information provided to the administration, "it was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat."
The only thing he's said that's objectionable is that the massive intelligence failure in Iraq calls into question the pre-emption doctrine. In fact, the reverse is true--our having to face the reality that we have no idea what our enemies are really up to suggests that we should get rid of them immediately. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 2, 2004 11:04 AM
Well, it also calls into question whether are correct in determining who are enemies actually are. Beyond the obvious ones like North Korea and Iran.
Posted by: Brandon at February 2, 2004 11:09 AMWe can't take their word for it?
Posted by: oj at February 2, 2004 11:18 AMimagine the appalling consequences if we had to wait for all intelligence to be absolutely proven beyond all doubt before we acted on it.
Posted by: Brit at February 2, 2004 11:39 AMOctober 1962, in Cuba, is the starkest example of
this
Pearl Harbor comes to mind. The first world Trade Center blast. The Embassy bombings. The USS Cole. 9/11.
Posted by: Genecis at February 2, 2004 5:15 PMOrrin,
the problem with alot of your solutions is not that they are not right, but that they are exceedingly unrealistic. We all know that the fact that we cannot find wmmd's, though we absolutely know they were there, has hurt the cause. No way to spin it. And it will hurt our ability to go after North Korea, etc. Yeah, we should just simply crush them, but I'm tired of your worldview, because it's fantasy.
We've got Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc, running the show and if it hasn't happened yet, it aint happenin'. I'm not gonna fool myself anymore.
Posted by: neil at February 3, 2004 12:41 AMThey only hurt the cause if one was inclined to be skeptical about it in the first place.
One might counsel patience; but then those who were extremely patient while sanctions were filling the pockets of sanctimonious Europeans need answers immediately.
One might wish to deny or demean the achievements made in Afghanistan and in Iraq, ignoring any of the positive accomplishments and potential in those places; ignoring the hope that millions of people have been given. And instead, focus on the potential catastrophe, the failure that is almost certain to occur. Forgetting, or ignoring the catastrophe that those countries represented prior to 9/11.
One might be somewhat satisfied over Qaddafi's decision to "cooperate" with the US; or one might deny any connection between that decision and the campaign in Iraq. Or as the results of international legal and/or economic pressure.
One might express wonder over the discoveries made about nuclear proliferation---and the techniques used for such proliferation---in and between rogue countries, discoveries made as a result of the WOT and Iraq; or one might simply dismiss it all as irrelevant.
One might consider that terrorism worldwide has been thrown off balance; or one might wish to claim that Bush has exaggerated the terrorist threat, proof of which is that 9/11 was a one-off operation---proving also that the Patriot Act has been totally unnecessary. (And why not go a step farther and claim that Bush also exacerbated the terrorist threat by his foolhardy response?)
One might wish to be persuaded by regimes and organizations whose only truthful utterances are in connnection to the havoc and destruction they plan to wreak on their enemies in the west; and one might view everything emerging from the mouths of democratic leaders with total skepticism.
I think it's fair to say that the opponents of the US, and its allies in this war, have used and will continue to use every tactic to oppose the US and its supporters, to distract the US, and to sow doubt, to erode support by any means possible.
That no WMD found is the latest in a series of such distractions. Certainly, many who use this argument were willing to wait for the WMD threat to be real, if it wasn't real already, though international intelligence all agreed that it was real.
And if WMD does happen to be the issue on which one has decided to hang one's support, it would be wise to consider that not every rock has yet been upturned.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at February 3, 2004 2:22 AMI don't think Bush, Wolfie, etc, give a damn fundamentally and morally that there are no wmd's. They were there.
I think they should have taken Iraq based on the fact that an out of control murderous dictator had so much power over a portion of the world's oil supply. We should own that oil. But my worldview is fantasy, though, I think, fundamentally correct.
I just don't think we will ever invade another country based on the precept that they are our forsworn enemy and our intelligence on them is questionable, so therefore our need to take them out is that much more imperative.
The fact that we could not find wmd's will forever weaken our ability to make a case, which we still have to do, to turn over malicious regimes worldwide.
Posted by: neil at February 3, 2004 7:19 AMNeil:
No one cares. That's the beauty of a democracy--it's never wrong, because then you and I would be wrong. No one is going to question a war we won and when we send troops into Western Pakistan it will obviously not be because of WMD,. any more than Afghanistan was.
Posted by: oj at February 3, 2004 8:50 AM