|After I posted and after the edit window closed, it occurred to me that part of our disconnect may be that the piece I posed was from my oldies but goodies collection. It was written about the time that the war started nearly three years ago. At that time the current complaints about who saw what intelligence and who lied were not factors. You may be assessing it in the context of current events.|
You can suppose all you like the neocons read too much into the evidence because of their subconscious views or whatever, but you won't persuade me until you find some evidence.
What evidence could there be? We can't possibly find clues that they were distorting their input. If they were, in fact, doing that, they probably didn't/or don't know it themselves so how can we find evidence of it.
The only evidence I have is that the decision to proceed was made very early. You spoke earlier today of a "14 month runup to the war" where they were working out the details but the decision go decision had been all but made. That was easy to recognize between the lines.
During that runup, everything I heard lead me to judge that the war wasn't warranted. Meanwhile they firmed up their commitment to the war. I explain that by judging that they read things differently from how I read them due to our disparate predispositions. That explanation makes a lot of sense to me. The only alternative explanations I could come up with are much less flattering to them than the one I have chosen. You would maybe prefer that I and others think Bush lied? <g>