Awareness of this failure, and its possible consequences for individuals' careers, are the only reasons I can find for the wall of spin which the spooks have fed to the media almost ever since.For those with an interest in protecting reputations of those previously in power, this explanation works. But it doesn't explain why those without that interest would go along. David Rose should consider this exchange reported in Woodward's Bush at War, p. 167 (citation from FR poster, The Great Satan):
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor [of anthrax letters]," Tenet assured them."It's good that we don't," said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."
"It's good that we don't," said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This makes sense. But of course, the press will tar Bush as being soft on terrorrism.
I can't imagine that the military buildup would be continuing apace without such certainty; and it's easy for me to imagine that a Saddam without hope would destroy himself, his country, and as many other people as he could touch with his suicidal swan-song.
Allowing for the positioning of the military while Saddam wonders if he can yet again delay his inevitable downfall, the public uncertainty serves the purposes of the good guys. I think that when all is ready, the naked truth will be made known to a doubting Western public.
What would be shocking to me is if Saddam and Al Qaeda were not cooperating.
Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda, et al.: Complaint (PDF) Lawsuit claiming a 9/11 link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Sept. 3, 2002
The file is in slow loading .pdf format, but it is an interesting read.
The US should publicly ask/demand the extradition from Iraq of Abdul Rahman Yasin. That would certainly put the WTC bombing and a link to Saddam in the minds of the public.
"Start with bin Laden," Bush said, "which Americans expect. And then if we succeeed, we've struck a huge blow and can move forward." He called the threat "a cancer" and added, "We don't want to define [it] too broadly for the average man to understand."p. 43
As for Saddam Hussein, the president ended the debate. "I believe Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now. I don't have the evidence at this point."
Bush said he wanted them to keep working on plans for military action in Iraq but indicated there would be plenty of time to do that. Everything else, though, had to be done soon.
"Start now," the president said. "It's very important to move fast. This is the new way."
p. 99
Rumsfeld raised the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be used against the United States. "It's an energizer for the American people," he said. "It's a completely different situation from anything we've ever faced before." Should the president address the issue in his speech?
"I left it out," Bush said flatly. "It could overwhelm the whole speech. At some point we have to brief the nation, absolutely. But I took it out. It's going to stay out. I thought long and hard about it."
Bush, clearly fearful of alarming people just nine days after the shocking attacks, said they would address it later, perhaps when they had better information.
"Do it in the context of an overall strategy," he said. "Need to be sure. Need to be honest," he added, "but I don't know about being brutally honest."
p. 106
"I'm worried about the BW threat, Cheney said, biological warfare.
Several of those present wondered if the vice president knew something, or if he had connected things they had missed. He was a thorough reader of intelligence reports and connector of dots. But there seemed to be nothing specific.
p. 166
"Many believe Saddam is involved," [Bush] said. "That's not an issue for now. If we catch him being involved, we'll act. He probably was behind this in the end."
p. 167
They turned to the hot topic of anthrax. The powder in the letter mailed to Senator Daschle's office had been found to be potent, prompting officials to suggest its source was likely an expert capable of producing the bacteria in large amounts. Tenet said, "I think it's AQ" -- meaning al Qaeda. "I think there's a state sponsor involved. It's too well thought out, the powder's too well refined. It might be Iraq, it might be Russia, it might be a renegade scientist," perhaps from Iraq or Russia.
Scooter Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, said he also thought the anthrax attacks were state sponsored. "We've got to be careful on what we say." It was important not to lay it on anyone now. "If we say it's al Qaeda, a state sponsor may feel safe and then hit us thinking they will have a bye because we'll blame it on al Qaeda."
"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor," Tenet assured them.
"It's good that we don't," said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."
p. 244
As we walked back, Bush again brought up Iraq. His blueprint or model for decision making in any war against Iraq, he told me, could be found in the story I was attempting to tell--the first months of the war in Afghanistan and the largely invisible CIA covert war against terrorism worldwide.
"You have the story," he said. Look hard at what you've got, he seemed to be saying. It was all there if it was pieced together--what he had learned, how he had settled into the presidency, his focus on larger goals, how he made decisions, why he provoked his war cabinet and pressured people for action.
I was straining to understand the meaning of this. At first his remark and what he had said before seemed to suggest he was leaning towards an attack on Iraq. Earlier in the interview, however, he had said, "I'm the kind of person that wants to make sure that all risk is assessed. But a president is constantly analyzing, making decisions based upon risk, particularly in war--risk taken relative to what can be achieved." What he wanted to achieve seemed clear. He wanted Saddam out.
Before he got back to his truck, Bush added another piece to the Iraqi puzzle. He had not yet seen a successful plan for Iraq, he said. He had to be careful and patient.
"A president, he added, "likes to have a military plan that will be successful."
p. 343
Cheney was beyond hell-bent for action against Saddam. It was as if nothing else existed.
p. 346
But we are now!. Or soon will be, very soon.
Nothing you and I didn't know a year ago