Saturday, May 01, 2004

Well this article has gone into the NYT archive. It's an important article as it ties Condi Rice's lies with Bush's lie keeping the U.N. informed about WMD on the run up to invading Iraq.

C.I.A. Admits It Didn't Give Weapon Data to the U.N.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — The Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged that it did not provide the
United Nations with information about 21 of the 105 sites in Iraq singled out by American intelligence
before the war as the most highly suspected of housing illicit weapons.

The acknowledgment, in a Jan. 20 letter to Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, contradicts public
statements before the war by top Bush administration officials.

Both George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice, the national security
adviser, said the United States had briefed United Nations inspectors on all of the sites denitrified as "high value and moderate value" in the weapons hunt.

The contradiction is signicant because Congressional opponents of the war were arguing a year ago that
the United Nations inspectors should be given more time to complete their search before the United
States and its allies began the invasion. NY Times February 21, 2004
The New York Times> Search> Abstract

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Anthony Zinni Former Commander in chief of U.S. Central command

Do you think Saddam had any stocks of banned weapons?

I believe there probably might have been some laying around that he wasn't aware of. They would have been obsolete, even dangerous to move around. There might have been some that were destroyed, there just wasn't proper accounting. But he wasn't even focused on that; they (the U.N. arms inspectors) were. So my belief of what was there was the possible, the potential that you had to plan for, of old stocks, artillery shells, rocket rounds. There was probably about two dozen Scuds (ballistic missiles) that were unaccounted for at the outside that could have possibly been weaponized. But as time went on, these things would have been much more difficult to move, much more difficult to upload. If he possessed those tactical weapons, these things would have had maybe marginal tactical effect on the battlefield in the short term. But certainly nothing of a great threat to the United States. So I really did not think this was a major or imminent or grave and gathering or potential threat.

What should we have done, then, in your view?

Continue to contain them. Containment worked. The president has said containment didn't work. I disagree. First of all, containment worked with the Soviet Union, the Cubans, the North Koreans, thus far. Containment was done at very low cost. In Centcom, in my time there when we had the dual containment policy, there were less troops on a day-to-day basis in the entire theater than than report to work at the Pentagon every day in the entire theater.

Sunday, April 25, 2004

THEN & NOW: Heeding & Ignoring Intel Warnings On Weak WMD Evidence

It is no wonder that 55% of Americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Why has the President not gone to the American people and made the situation clear? Could it be that Bush benefits from this false impression? via Josh Marshall and Juan Cole.