(no subject)
Apr. 8th, 2004 10:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weaktwosHere are some interesting links this morning:
A little review on Condi Rice's Expertise: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10213
This article includes a little tidbit I did not know about:
Rice defended Gates, who was accused of preparing false testimony for former CIA director Bill Casey on the Iran-Contra scandal. Senator after senator complained that Bush's National Security team had completely missed the boat on the collapse of the USSR. Most damaging of all, the Bush NSC stood accused of skewing intelligence to mislead Congress into permitting arms sales and loans to Saddam Hussein's Iraq for two years after the gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds. Indeed, under the first Bush administration, Iraq's access to U.S. agricultural products and biological agents including anthrax and botulinium toxins was first cut off on Aug. 2, 1990, the day Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.
Here is a summary of issues to consider in appraising Rice's testimony this morning: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44768
Here's a NRO opinion on how the 9/11 Commission really cannot help but make an "intellectually suspect" opinion: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200404080814.asp
I suppose we could make that claim about all historical reviews. Hell, all of our opinions about historical events are tainted by our hindsight views. At some point, we can make some judgement and learn some lessons. Sure, we need to seek to understand the spirit in which those decisions were made. But if you're asking us to try to fathom the lack of interest in the Bush administration to take preventative action before 9/11, despite numerous documents suggesting the threat, with such a history of 20 years ignoring this threat, well, guess again.
A little review on Condi Rice's Expertise: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10213
This article includes a little tidbit I did not know about:
Rice defended Gates, who was accused of preparing false testimony for former CIA director Bill Casey on the Iran-Contra scandal. Senator after senator complained that Bush's National Security team had completely missed the boat on the collapse of the USSR. Most damaging of all, the Bush NSC stood accused of skewing intelligence to mislead Congress into permitting arms sales and loans to Saddam Hussein's Iraq for two years after the gassing of the Iranians and the Kurds. Indeed, under the first Bush administration, Iraq's access to U.S. agricultural products and biological agents including anthrax and botulinium toxins was first cut off on Aug. 2, 1990, the day Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait.
Here is a summary of issues to consider in appraising Rice's testimony this morning: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44768
Here's a NRO opinion on how the 9/11 Commission really cannot help but make an "intellectually suspect" opinion: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200404080814.asp
I suppose we could make that claim about all historical reviews. Hell, all of our opinions about historical events are tainted by our hindsight views. At some point, we can make some judgement and learn some lessons. Sure, we need to seek to understand the spirit in which those decisions were made. But if you're asking us to try to fathom the lack of interest in the Bush administration to take preventative action before 9/11, despite numerous documents suggesting the threat, with such a history of 20 years ignoring this threat, well, guess again.
