Replies

Great piece.

I read the Kay report, or most of it. What I saw there was that much evidence HAS been found of *programs* and *facilities* for chemical and bio weapons. The only thing that has not yet been found are the actual stockpiles.

Given that chem and bio stockpiles will by nature be small, due to the logistics for storage and safety, and the varying shelf lives of different agents, why is this some big mystery?

The BIG part of the problem was the PROGRAMS, not just the stockpiles. Kay's report shows that the programs were alive and well. Why, oh why, can it not be reported this way by the press??? Nevermind, I know the answer there...

I saw Tenet's speech yesterday. He hit it out of the park. He very successfully defended the Intel business in general and the intel leading to the decision to take Iraq down. He listed a long series of very serious intel data points that were all CORRECT that would have had to have been IGNORED in order to decide not to take Iraq out.

The press blames Bush and Tenet for not connecting dots and somehow preventing 9/11. The same press bashes Bush and Tenet for acting on strong intelligence and sound policy.

But of course the only headlines we see today are that "Tenet says there was no imminent threat".

[sigh]

Sec. Rumsfeld, however, wasn't having any of it. Indeed, he dismissed the red-nosed senator's claims with a terse and all-but-sobering rebuff: "You've twice or thrice mentioned manipulation. I haven't heard of it, I haven't seen any of it, except in the comments you've made."

"the red-nosed senator" LOL!

Seriously though, Kennedy sounds like he's gone off the edge with his wild accusations and incoherent rants.

"You cannot say that you're going to get rid of the special interests in Washington if you've taken more money than any other senator in the last 15 years from special interests," Dean said of Kerry.

I thought hillary had the record for that.