As much as I hate to say it, Bush made a good point in a speech yesterday. The UN Security Council looked at the same intel, and they thought that invasion was justified. The Clinton administration looked at earlier intel and determined that regime change in Iraq was to become policy.
Of course then he went on to harp on his usual 'Kerry Changes his mind sometimes based on changing information, so that is somehow a bad thing!'....
It all depends on what the definition of "the intelligence" is...
The Clinton administration had access to raw, equivocal data, most of which from when inspectors were actually on the ground and set regime change and containment (not preemptive deterrence) as its policy.
The Bush administration settled on regime change via preemptive deterrence as its policy and also happened to have access to raw, equivocal data from when inspectors were not actually on the ground.
Congress was shown distilled (declassified) unequivocal data that justified the need for preemptive deterrrence and supported the administration's policy.
The UN Security Council was shown the same data and demanded (and received) new inspectors on the ground but did not support preemptive deterrence. [If you're referring to this speech, he is not asserting that the UN voted for invasion based on pre-invasion data.]
The Bush administration didn't like the lack of evidence the inspectors were discovering that disputed their distilled (declassified) unequivocal data, told the new inspectors to get out and set about imposing regime change via preemptive deterrence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Of course then he went on to harp on his usual 'Kerry Changes his mind sometimes based on changing information, so that is somehow a bad thing!'....
no subject
The Clinton administration had access to raw, equivocal data, most of which from when inspectors were actually on the ground and set regime change and containment (not preemptive deterrence) as its policy.
The Bush administration settled on regime change via preemptive deterrence as its policy and also happened to have access to raw, equivocal data from when inspectors were not actually on the ground.
Congress was shown distilled (declassified) unequivocal data that justified the need for preemptive deterrrence and supported the administration's policy.
The UN Security Council was shown the same data and demanded (and received) new inspectors on the ground but did not support preemptive deterrence. [If you're referring to this speech, he is not asserting that the UN voted for invasion based on pre-invasion data.]
The Bush administration didn't like the lack of evidence the inspectors were discovering that disputed their distilled (declassified) unequivocal data, told the new inspectors to get out and set about imposing regime change via preemptive deterrence.