Monday, February 07, 2005
David Kay and Poor Political Rhetoric
Let's Not Make the Same Mistakes in Iran (washingtonpost.com): "Fifth, a National Intelligence Estimate as to Iran's nuclear activities should not be a rushed and cooked document used to justify the threat of military action. Now is the time for serious analysis that genuinely tries to pull together all the evidence and analytical skills of the vast U.S. intelligence community to reach the best possible judgment on the status of that program and the gaps in our knowledge. That assessment should not be led by a team that is trying to prove a case for its boss. Now is the time to reach outside the secret brotherhood and pull in respected outsiders to lead the assessment. "
I have immense respect for David Kay. In fact, I held all conclusions until the February date when his team's report came back last year. That is how I came to understand that the intelligence really was faulty. I was always taken with him when he spoke on news shows. He has a clear command of his profession, and it sparked my confidence in him. When he said there were no WMD, then I knew it must be so. This piece, however, has several key words that tell us that he is not in support of this government. "Cooked document", "Prove a case for its boss", Secret brotherhood". These are not helpful. They do nothing but attempt to undermine our leadership. We should not forget, after all, that when he appeared on those news shows before the war, that he believed that there were WMD too. If anything, he helped "sell" the war. He may regret that now, but it was his reading of those "cooked documents" that helped convince me. I am not suggesting that he doesn't have the right to all of these thoughts or that he is no longer credible, but rather that this, too, needs to be seen in his greater context.
I have immense respect for David Kay. In fact, I held all conclusions until the February date when his team's report came back last year. That is how I came to understand that the intelligence really was faulty. I was always taken with him when he spoke on news shows. He has a clear command of his profession, and it sparked my confidence in him. When he said there were no WMD, then I knew it must be so. This piece, however, has several key words that tell us that he is not in support of this government. "Cooked document", "Prove a case for its boss", Secret brotherhood". These are not helpful. They do nothing but attempt to undermine our leadership. We should not forget, after all, that when he appeared on those news shows before the war, that he believed that there were WMD too. If anything, he helped "sell" the war. He may regret that now, but it was his reading of those "cooked documents" that helped convince me. I am not suggesting that he doesn't have the right to all of these thoughts or that he is no longer credible, but rather that this, too, needs to be seen in his greater context.
