Boy, where to start with this article in Sundayâs Post?
Not only is it clear, according to the Kay teamâs own internal findings, that Iraq had no nuclear program. But weâve known this pretty much since we first pulled into Baghdad. The only reason itâs not public knowledge is that David Kay has taken it as his task, not to inform the public of the state of Iraqâs pre-war weapons programs, but to carry the water of the White House and obscure the truth as long as possible.
The defenders of the White House now seem intent on lowering the bar to the most comical of levels, arguing that Saddam Hussein had not relinquished the âdesireâ or the âambitionâ to have nuclear weapons. But by this standard (viz, Matthew 5:27-30) probably half the married men in America have cheated on their wives with Pam Anderson or Angelina Jolie. So Iâm not quite sure what that proves.
The imminent threat, it seems, was that Saddam was lusting in his heart for nukes, not that he was doing anything to get them.
Along the way, youâve got lots of pitiful attempts at push-back spin from administration officials who wonât give their name. Hereâs one choice example â¦
An administration official, defending the CIA's prewar analysis, said its message had been widely misunderstood. "The term 'reconstituting' means restoring to a former condition, a process often inferred to be short term," he said. "Based on reporting, however, Saddam clearly viewed it as a long-term process. So did the NIE."
Long-term, indeed ...
(And as I said in the last post, where do you figure all this information's coming from?)