Inwood: As I mentioned earlier in this thread I'm not sure that the title is really what should be questioned. Actually I'm not sure what the right question to ask is. However it's been interesting to ask questions and see if I can figure some of this out.
In all my hunting I came across an article that used a previous perceived national emergency to explore one possible explanation about what is happening with the Bush administration in it's belief in Iraq being a looming threat to the US.
The article reviews the perceived "missile gap" with the USSR in the late 50s. The basic gist of the article is that some of the people let their beliefs influence how they interpreted the intelligence that had been gathered. These people believed the USSR had a larger number of missiles then the US. But the evidence they were seeing didn't support this. And since it didn't support their view of the situation the intelligence must be wrong. They never seemed to stop and think for a moment that they might be wrong. But the intelligence wasn't wrong which was reinforced when we finally had satellite imagery to peer into the USSR. It showed no missile gap as the earlier evidence indicated.
The author does not question the patriotism of the people who got the missile gap wrong. And he doesn't question the patriotism of the current administration. But he suggests that they've let their beliefs interfere with how they view the intelligence they receive. Since it's not supporting their view it must be wrong. As opposed to them questioning their beliefs to see if maybe they're the ones who have it wrong.
http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2084988
So...I think I gave an okay Digest version of the article but I've given the link so you can check it yourself.
So that may be one way to explain why members of the Bush Administration have been so adamant about their views. They can't believe that they could be wrong. And despite what evidence is received that contradicts their views they will not change that view. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you believe something you do want to defend it. Sometimes you need more then one or two contrary things that contradict your view to be convinced that your overall view might need review.
Now how did they come to this view of things? I don't have the inside scoop on that but I did find an article that touches on this subject. Even though the article may be kind of biased, depending on your view of the world, I think it kind of lays out thoughts that some key players in this situation might be entertaining.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0409/p03s01-uspo.htm
Regardless of how they got their views the administration has a problem with intelligence (And I can hear the snickers now). I don't think anyone doubts that Saddam would have restarted his programs if he had been given a clean bill of health by the world. But the absence of large (or small for that matter) stockpiles on the ground is undercutting the administrations arguments. And it doesn't appear to be getting better. (See article below.)
http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp
I don't regret our getting rid of Saddam. But I think the administration has been shooting itself and our country in the foot by not stepping back and reassessing their views on this matter. Maybe they'll be proven right in the long run. Maybe these WMDs are there. Still a fresh look at how they look at these situations might give them an out-of-the-box idea of what may have happened. At worst they'll spend a few days gazing at their navels. At best maybe we can get things in better shape, the Iraqi's on the road to a better life and our soldiers home before more of them die.
