I'm about to create my own grid for determining how I'm going to vote. Right now, I'm interested in this:
The Art of Camouflage: David Kay comes clean, almost.
Is it a mark in favor of Bush? That in fact the CIA was in such bad shape that he couldn't have known that even Saddam himself was fooled by his own people? Or is it a mark against Bush? That, being the executive officer, his CIA should have been able to tell him what was really so?
I think it's a mark against, and here's why: I can't imagine that the CIA would have, indeed,
could have shown that there were unmistakable signs of developing WMD. There's only a lot of interpretation. Is that enough to justify a pre-emptive strike? Enough to intervene, against the will of the U.N., and kill thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers? There have been so many evil despots in the world. There are others in Africa practicing genocide, aren't there? Why this one? Why not the others?
