http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr14.html
From the online Q&A:
Quote:
|
"Bob Woodward: The president, when I interviewed him, he said repeatedly that he is a gut player, that he follows his instincts and was clearly on to something here. But as the CEO he perhaps should have followed and pushed that instinct harder. At the same time, all kinds of people were convinced that WMD were there and there was a body of evidence to suggest that was correct. The intelligence mistake was failing to explain that the CIA lacked ironclad evidence -- absolute proof or a smoking gun. The overall judgment or opinion that Saddam had WMD is reasonable but the President and everyone should have been signalled that this was only intelligence and not fact."
|
Great. That's just great. Am I to understand that the "pitch" the President was offered on Iraq was responsible for the war? That if the evidence had been brought forward in a more reserved approach, the President's gut- feeling would have been different? That's just too rich. "Say, President, do you think we should go to war on this? Yes, my instinct tells me that is the right thing to do".
There's some things I don't get about this. It is a fact that before the war there were many opinions that was not exactly unchecked praises about the intelligence available. Even within the channels that should be immediately available to the president. And some of the most damning evidence was found to be forgeries and the rest highly speculative, being eyewitness accounts and insider tips. This we knew before the war. And now we also know that in spite of how certain some people seemed, they didn't have the "other" evidence that was absolutely certain after all. It seems the President's "instinct" was wrong.
But what happens? The Bush/Cheney campaign has put this book up on the recommended reading list. I wonder, do they think that the honest naivité Bush radiates will make it appear that they acted responsibly? That people would somehow forget the fact that the idea of going to war with Iraq in the first place came from the administration? That people will understand that the President would have to lie in order to do some neccessary dirty work, or that the WMD's didn't matter after all? Or have they simply decided to ride out the wave of bullshit, resolve and decisiveness all the way to election day? That the absence of a critical approach on the actual decision for a war would be forgotten? I mean, if it were me, I would shut the hell up about it, try to put on a happy face and not bring any attention to the fact that war plans were being not only planned but put into life and declared simply based on huches and instincts.
But I'm obviously missing an aspect here. Any ideas about that? :confused: