Embraced? The suggestion is clearHow about "acted on?" No, the NYTimes must add their bias.

It seems so obvious to me. Mr. Cheney was looking at evidence that aluminum tubes might be used for nuclear developments in Iraq. It wasn't clear. It was causing arguments among CIA officials and nuclear scientists. Nobody really seemed to know exactly, so Cheney determined we needed to take action based on some probabilities. It's a statistical case. Did they do a statistical business analysis of this, a probabilty tree? The ultimate decision may have been in error, but at the time, that was not ascertainable with certainty. What if nothing had been done, and the tubes in fact were being developed for clandestine purposes? What if the tubes were then used to evil purpose? Who would have been faulted? The nuclear scientists?

It's always so easy to go after decisions of others once they are past, and the subsequent information proves them wrong. "I would have done it differently," Mr. Kerry proclaims. Well yes, perhaps in this case, inaction would have turned out to have been the right choice. But when a threat looks imminent, hard choices sometimes have to be made on scanty evidence. Saddam kicked out the inspectors. Saddam was shooting at US airplanes. Saddam was defying the 18th UN resolution. And evidence suggested nuclear programs were being pursued. It seems obvious so to me.