Debate Over Iraqi Arms Poses Risk to President
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — The intensifying debate over prewar American intelligence about Iraq presents President Bush with difficult and risky alternatives as he balances election year politics with calls to overhaul the intelligence apparatus and to restore the nation's credibility around the world.
He could order the start of an inquiry about the performance of intelligence agencies, as Democrats and the former chief weapons inspector, David A. Kay, have insisted, but his aides fear that that could prove politically damaging and would almost certainly reopen old wounds with the C.I.A.
He could keep arguing that military action was justified no matter how immediate a threat Saddam Hussein posed, and put off an examination and possible overhaul of America's intelligence operations for another year. But his political team worries that doing so could keep the issue alive through a long campaign.
Or the president and those on his national security team who once described how Mr. Hussein could use his stockpiles of weapons to strike at any time could conclude that something went badly wrong during their long march to war.
But the White House does not make a habit of admitting error. And even if Mr. Bush vowed to fix what many say is a broken system, his national security aides note, the fix would not be easy.
"They've made a pretty huge mess of it," said one senior Republican who has been talking to Mr. Bush's top advisers about what steps to take next. "They wove this giant story, based on intelligence assessments that in hindsight — and this is hindsight, remember — were wrong.
"It's exposed a huge problem in our intelligence gathering. But who wants to take that on in an election year? Or while you are fighting terrorists?"
I love that last line. Aren't we supposed to be "fighting terrorists" for the next few decades?
If you DON'T take it on while you're fighting terrorists, you're going to be fighting them forever.
Posted by P6 at January 30, 2004 07:57 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/184
Comments
The problem with GOP officials is that they've become something of a professional monoculture. See, you--being a normal person--hear a remark like "It's exposed a huge problem in our intelligence gathering. But who wants to take that on [...] while you are fighting terrorists?" and think, "Aren't security decisions supposed to be based on the best available intelligence? Isn't that why we spend 30+ billion on espionage / counterintelligence?" But in a monoculture, the GOP officials are thinking, "We'll leave the integrity of security decisions in the hands of the NSC. Our job is to ensure that the Admin has a friendly legislative environment so that they have flexibility."
This actually makes sense in the business world, where defeat of your rival is an unalloyed benefit. Running the nation like a business has led, however, to a collapse of accountability.
Posted by James R MacLean at January 30, 2004 01:58 PMSee, you--being a normal person--hear a remark like "It's exposed a huge problem in our intelligence gathering. But who wants to take that on [...] while you are fighting terrorists?" and think, "Aren't security decisions supposed to be based on the best available intelligence? Isn't that why we spend 30+ billion on espionage / counterintelligence?"
Re-calibrate your normalameter. Normal people hear that and say, "yeah, who cares, just keep killing terrorists."
Posted by Phelps at January 30, 2004 06:41 PMWho cares about whether there's any basis for it or not? Who cares about due process and the rule of law? Let's just keep killing people. If that's your morality, Phelps, I can't say that it's all that much better than whoever you've identified as the terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic not a country. It's killing outside the laws of war. As such it can be done by anyone even America. You might say "but we're different, because we stand for what's right and good" but that's what everybody else says too.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 2, 2004 04:43 PM