Kay actually does make an argument supportive of the Administration's doctrine of preventive war. But it's the argument that if the US judges that a leader of another country has lust in his heart to do something threatening at some time in the future, that's sufficient justification for invading and occupying that country (my emphasis):
Well, Senator Dayton, I think you're on to the issue. We no longer are going to be living in a world in which we can control capabilities. Intentions are what are going to be important. And quite frankly, that's what made Saddam so dangerous, in my view. Here was an individual who had invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons against one of them, and used them against the other. So it was hard to have a benign interpretation of that individual's intentions. And the real challenge for intelligence is going to be getting to our political leaderships, not just judgments about capabilities, but judgments about real intentions. And that is tough.
This is the basis of Kay's statement that Saddam was somehow potentially more dangerous than the US thought. For Bush to cite this in response to questions about the specific claims he and his Administration made about the weapons of which there was "no doubt" is dishonest as well as disingenious.
Interestingly enough, the Kay quotation cited by Gaffney in National Review Online as from his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee actually appears to come from this NPR interview (go to minute 11:00).
No comments:
Post a Comment