|
|
|
During my sojourn at the remote firebase, I watched some TV before turning in for the night. Much as I dislike CNN, they had an interview with David Kay.
I found Kay a delight to watch and listen to. The man is energetic and forthright. He comes across as an apolitical technician. He spoke about his failure to find WMD in Iraq. When Blitzer asked him if the war was justified in light of his findings, Kay responded, "Absolutely! We found Iraq to be an even greater danger than we originally thought."
He went on to highlight other US intelligence failures: Our underestimating Libra’s WMD & our intelligence failures during the Cuban missile crisis.
He said that during the Carter years human intelligence was de-emphasized in preference to using technology.
He also stated unequivocally that the CIA had NOT been pressured.
I’m sure the Democrats will use this to criticize the president. But what were our alternatives. Intelligence, like any other human endeavor, always has a margin of error to it. This means that we were likely to either over or under estimate Iraq’s danger. So which would you rather we do? Would you rather we error on the side of safety or danger? If you want us to get it perfect – well good luck.
From what I have heard from Kay’s report, the intelligence was wrong. But we still did the right thing.
One fallout of the war in Iraq is Libya’s surrender. We didn’t have to fire a shot. And what have we found? We found our intelligence on Libya had UNDERESTIMATED their weapons program.
Posted by Ted at February 3, 2004 9:29 PM