In a political context, when it is hard to sell a venture that will entail sacrifice, it is not very telling to feel that the pro- war position is being hyped. Obviously, they are trying to appeal to a mass audience and get it on board. "Hype" can be anything from simplification of the issues to baldly misleading or exaggerating statements. But to put your best case forward, suppressing complications, is normal to a mass democracy, and does not necessarily imply bad faith.
In any event, I listen to the objections that people have, and sometimes they seem more plausible than others. I cannot say that I found the criticisms of the intelligence overall very compelling. I could see perfectly well that some particular points might be subject to legitimate controversy, but, as I have tried to make clear, I considered the consensus position on Saddam's capabilities (that is, the position shared by even French and German intelligence) sufficient to justify our position, regardless of the controverted details. Additionally, I never thought that the inspections would satisfy our concerns, in the end, because it was just too easy to hide adequate stocks of WMDs, not for general warmaking, but for clandestine use by terrorists, which was the chief concern.
As for demanding real answers, even if they were perfectly honest, they cannot provide all of the documentation and so forth that one might want, because to do so would get people killed, and alert foes of intelligence methods and apparatus. In this area, some degree of mysteriousness is unavoidable.
As it stands, I have always said that if there are substantial questions that can be probed by the Congress or ad hoc commissions, I will be glad to have their input, in the hopes of furthering understanding of what has been going on. But there is an objective limit to how far ordinary citizens can get in speculating about such matters themselves, without power of subpoena, staffs, and so forth......... |
