Defending Bush on WMD: A Better Metaphor

    Last week I took a shot at how the president might explain the failed prediction that Iraq had WMD.
    The problem is that the intelligence community had good reason to believe that WMD existed and would be used. I’ve argued that the deception might have been detected with more careful intelligence analysis  and more integrity on the part of top-level intelligence and defense officials.
    My arguments are abstract and speculative. Bush needs an argument that frames the question in a way that is understandable and compelling. Today Jonah Goldberg has a better metaphor  on Townhall.com. Based on captured Iraqi documents he suggests:

Hussein practiced a strategy that one Republican Guard commander called "deterrence by doubt," in which he hoped to bluff the world into believing he had WMD in order to deter Iran and keep his rep as an Arab strongman with serious mojo.
…
The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn't a mark against Bush's decision. If you're a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you're within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who's shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn't loaded, that's not the cop's fault.

Reagan and Clinton could bring this off. Bush might not. I understand that he does not want to defend himself against the "Bush Lied" sound bite. At some point he will be forced to mount a defense. this is a better way of framing the question.

NOTE: This post linked to Beltway Traffic Jam for 03/24/2006.

Comments

[fw]

So let's going with Goldberg's metaphor:

First of all, Hussein never brandish a gun, but you insisted he did. Then he told you that he didn't have a gun for a long time. Then the community, UN, told you they cannot find the gun. Further more, some of your household memebers, whose job is to track Huessein's doing, told you dont trust the inforrmants who said Hussein has a gun.

So nevemind the facts and information, you decided to shoot him anyway.

I dont really have time to refute every single line what Goldberg wrote, but if you look back what has been said in the last few year with an open mind, you'll see his ratioale falls apart like a house of cards.

One thing that renders unforgivable is the attempt assination of GH Bush, but even that is at dispute in some intelligence quarters.