"Could it be that all those reports coming from our own intelligence that Bush ignored was right all along? Could it be that the UN was right all along?"
About this Quote
The bite of this line is in its feigned innocence. Schuyler stages two questions as if he is merely wondering aloud, but the structure is prosecutorial: repetition turns doubt into indictment. "Could it be" performs politeness while sharpening the blade. It lets the speaker accuse without owning the accusation outright, a useful tactic for any politician trying to sound reasonable while cornering an opponent.
The phrasing also weaponizes provenance. "Reports coming from our own intelligence" is a legitimacy claim: not foreign gossip, not partisan spin, but supposedly authoritative information from inside the state. Pairing that with "Bush ignored" frames the failure as willful, not accidental. It's not that leadership was misled; it's that it chose not to know. Then the second question widens the blast radius: if "the UN was right", the implied error isn't just domestic incompetence, it's a moral and diplomatic miscalculation that isolated the country and discredited its rationale.
There's an intentional triangulation here between expertise (intelligence), institutional multilateralism (the UN), and executive ego ("Bush"). The subtext is less about settling a factual dispute than about restoring a hierarchy of credibility: listen to analysts, respect allies, distrust messianic certainty. Even without precise historical alignment to Schuyler's era, the rhetorical DNA is unmistakably modern: a post-mortem of power that failed to do the boring work of governance, then paid for it in legitimacy.
The phrasing also weaponizes provenance. "Reports coming from our own intelligence" is a legitimacy claim: not foreign gossip, not partisan spin, but supposedly authoritative information from inside the state. Pairing that with "Bush ignored" frames the failure as willful, not accidental. It's not that leadership was misled; it's that it chose not to know. Then the second question widens the blast radius: if "the UN was right", the implied error isn't just domestic incompetence, it's a moral and diplomatic miscalculation that isolated the country and discredited its rationale.
There's an intentional triangulation here between expertise (intelligence), institutional multilateralism (the UN), and executive ego ("Bush"). The subtext is less about settling a factual dispute than about restoring a hierarchy of credibility: listen to analysts, respect allies, distrust messianic certainty. Even without precise historical alignment to Schuyler's era, the rhetorical DNA is unmistakably modern: a post-mortem of power that failed to do the boring work of governance, then paid for it in legitimacy.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Peter
Add to List


