PNAC director Gary Schmitt falls back on a new tagline to justify the Iraq invasion: "Our Basic Instincts Were Sound". He writes:
Critics of the war and the administration have been quick to use Kay's statements as evidence that the White House jury-rigged intelligence estimates to support its policy of getting rid of Hussein, and hyped what intelligence there was on Iraq's programs. But the Bush administration relied on virtually the same intelligence estimates that the Clinton administration used during the U.N.-inspection crisis in late 1997. ... So, what should be done? The most obvious goal should be to improve intelligence. ... Our next goal, however, should be to understand that what we lack in detailed intelligence about weapons programs is more than offset by our strategic intelligence about particular countries' intent.
In other words, we know Saddam was evil, in a general kind of way, even if we lack the specifics to show why, so we were justified. Our basic instincts were sound. The trouble is, if the Clinton administration was using the same intelligence, why didn't it invade? If the intelligence was the same, then the only difference I can see is the Bush administration policy. That points to a failure of policy, not intelligence. Schmitt's column points that out if you read between the lines, but he's not about to admit it. He feints an acknowledgement that Clinton had the same information, and then goes on to say "well, we need to improve our intelligence anyway." The blame-CIA approach manages to duck the question about the validity of Bush's preemptive approach with respect to Iraq. So it becomes a matter of correcting a hidebound bureacracy, rather than reexamining a fundamental policy. It's a classic technocratic strategy.
Schmitt wraps it up:
The real issue is whether we have the political will to use what we know to design policies for unfriendly countries far enough in advance so that we don't have to rely on the more difficult and risky military option.
He should have said that the real issue is whether we have the political will to invade countries even without substantive and accurate information about the threat level they pose. That's the kernel of this spin.
(Via Tapped)
One of the things I used to admire about conservatives was their intellectual honesty; sure, the policies they advocated were often cruel and mean-spirited, but the rationale was: "look, we can coddle you forever-- but aren't you better off picking yourself up and doing for yourself."
All of this is out the window now: just about all conservatives these days are simply intellectual whores of the worst kind, speaking and writing as party cheerleaders and apologists and nothing else.
The PNAC maniacs at least believed that we were going to bring freedom and democracy to the dark and awful Middle East, and that those ends justified the means of "fudging" on the rationale for war. So, hey, let's keep on fudging, right?
As I said, whores of the worst kind.