Big Media Matt, writing for Tapped, goes a-googling and finds evidence of flip-flops in David Brooks's "put more political influence in the intelligence community" argument. Basically, Brooks has been arguing the same thing for a long time, but back in 2002 it was convenient for him to say that CIA was underestimating the threat of Iraq. Now, in 2004, it's more convenient to say they overestimated. After all, he's got a president to protect.
Matt doesn't mention it, but it's key to note that the Brooks argument allows this sort of flipflopping, even demands it. After all, if intelligence is a political process, then it's subject to the whims of changing ideology and political necessity. "More political hacks at CIA" is a call for the agency to say whatever needs to be said. It's something that's incredibly corrosive of intelligence -- both the spooks-n-spies kind, and the smarts kind.
For more detail, you can check out the Slacktivist, which has an excellent timeline of the revisionist history about Iraqi WMDs.
Posted by Chris at February 3, 2004 12:05 PM