Sunday, May 14, 2006
Whom to Believe?
One of the things that we all thought had been resolved was the mobile laboratories in Iraq. Colin Powell had used them to support the claim we were making to the UN and to the World for finishing Gulf War 1. We had been told that they were probably not mobile labs for biological warfare but generators of hydrogen for artillery or weather balloons. Case closed.
Not so fast there, kitty cat.
Here are two stories that appear to be 180 degrees apart (in an arc like way).
First there is the AP story that there was political pressure to stifle the dissent about the mobile labs with our crack spy outfit and other experts. Highlights.
A year after Bush administration claims about Iraqi "bioweapons trailers" were discredited by American experts, U.S. officials were still suppressing the findings, says a senior member of the Iraq inspection team.
At one point, former U.N. arms inspector Rod Barton says, a CIA officer told him it was "politically not possible" to report that the White House claims were untrue. In the end, Barton says, he felt "complicit in deceit."
Then there is a translated captured document. Highlights:
Military Industrialization Commission
Ibn Rushd General Company
Number 10025611018
Date 11/11/2002
To: Military Industrialization Commission/Department of Projects
Subject: Investment Plan for the year 2003
In regards from the letter signed with you on 12/10/2002 regarding our company investment plan to the year mentioned above, included is the technical report according to the letter showing its details below:
1. Develop and enlarge existing laboratories, 178,000,000 Dinars
2. Prepare MOBILE LABORATORIES...
Whom to believe--our weapons experts or our former enemies? It shouldn't be a tough choice, but it is.
'Captain' Ed Morrissey has a pretty solid analysis. There might have been a benign explanation for the labs but hydrogen production seems a wholly wrong call. It's not like our intelligence services haven't totally failed us before. And often.
Not so fast there, kitty cat.
Here are two stories that appear to be 180 degrees apart (in an arc like way).
First there is the AP story that there was political pressure to stifle the dissent about the mobile labs with our crack spy outfit and other experts. Highlights.
A year after Bush administration claims about Iraqi "bioweapons trailers" were discredited by American experts, U.S. officials were still suppressing the findings, says a senior member of the Iraq inspection team.
At one point, former U.N. arms inspector Rod Barton says, a CIA officer told him it was "politically not possible" to report that the White House claims were untrue. In the end, Barton says, he felt "complicit in deceit."
Then there is a translated captured document. Highlights:
Military Industrialization Commission
Ibn Rushd General Company
Number 10025611018
Date 11/11/2002
To: Military Industrialization Commission/Department of Projects
Subject: Investment Plan for the year 2003
In regards from the letter signed with you on 12/10/2002 regarding our company investment plan to the year mentioned above, included is the technical report according to the letter showing its details below:
1. Develop and enlarge existing laboratories, 178,000,000 Dinars
2. Prepare MOBILE LABORATORIES...
Whom to believe--our weapons experts or our former enemies? It shouldn't be a tough choice, but it is.
'Captain' Ed Morrissey has a pretty solid analysis. There might have been a benign explanation for the labs but hydrogen production seems a wholly wrong call. It's not like our intelligence services haven't totally failed us before. And often.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 9:58 PM 
