At 12:29 PM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: >> I'm not sure why you feel betrayed here. In what way did you >> specficially have your perceptions of Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat to >> the United States changed from 2003 to 2004? > >To speak to time frame you asked about, I believed that Iraq had far >more capability to develop WMDs than I now believe they did.
O.k., I presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce chemical weapons. I also presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce anthrax, and possibly other biological weapons. I presume that you believed then that Baathist Iraq had the ability to produce nuclear weapons in the near term. Do you no longer believe that Baathist Iraq had this ability? >I believe that the administration manipulated intelligence, with only a >small possibility in my mind that it wasn't deliberate. What aspects of intelligence do you believe were manipulated? And why do you believe that it is more likely that this intelligence was manipulated deliberately, rather than misinterpreted by individuals who saw the intelligence they were presented with as confirming what they already believe - even *knew* - to be true? >> This was a direct assault on the US's interests, our >> economy, and our way of life. > >I get the first one -- US interests. I'm not so sure about the second >-- to me, attacking the economy would mean threatening the system, the >feedback loops and so forth that regulate markets. Are you saying that >a threat to our goods and services is a threat to our economy? If so, >how's that different from our interests? Or are these two akin to >strategic interests and economic interests? > >The last one -- our way of life -- is something I've heard many times >over the last couple of years, but I really don't get it. What does it >mean to you? In this case, the threat to our interests and our economy was largely the same. This is not always true, however, so it included both. I would point out, that the US has interest in economic stability in Europe and Japan, both of which rely more heavily on Middle Eastern oil than the US economy. This threat to our interests would only have threatened the US economy in the second degree. Additionally, it is in the US interests to preserve the existence of Israel. O.k. reasonable people may disagree on that point, but it was and is US policy. Having Saddam Hussein in control of a substantial portion of the Middle East would be an indirect threat to Israel, by increasing funding for Palestinian terrorists, as well as potentially a direct threat in the future. Lastly, the official US policy - until 2001 - was to maintain a "balance of power" in the Middle East. The arise of a regional hegemon in the Middle East would be a threat to our interests. As for a threat to our way of life, I mention this to specify that the threat to our economy would not be not just the sort that produced a recession, but potentially the sort that could cripple the US economy in the short run. >I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull the >West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it was >to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a possibility >that cannot be discounted! Nuts? If your man, John Kerry, had been President, the US wouldn't have even attempted to stop him. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
