From the September dossier to yesterday's backtrack (UK Independent)

[tinnypriv]

From the September dossier to yesterday's backtrack: a truth-spotter's guide to how official language has changed
The Independent, July 11 2003

* "When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for 10,000 litres of anthrax; a far-reaching VX nerve agent programme; up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, and possibly more than 10 times that amount; unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons; and an entire Scud missile programme. We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years -- contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence -- Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."

Tony Blair, Iraq debate, House of Commons, 18 March 2003

* Verdict: It may have been "absurd" to believe that Saddam had destroyed his arsenal. However, just weeks later, after the war was over, that was exactly what the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, did suggest.

...

* "It was important to understand the purpose of the dossier. It was asking two questions: Had the threat increased? If so, did we have to deal with it? The answer to both questions was yes."

Downing Street press briefing, 23 September 2002

* Verdict: Downing Street made the key charge that the threat from Saddam had "increased" on the eve of the publication of the September dossier. Senior figures, including the former cabinet ministers Clare Short and Robin Cook now seriously doubt whether the threat had been maintained since the early 1990s, let alone increased.

....

more: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=423530

[Skip Intro]

1. Didn't rummy say just the opposite yesterday?

<<* "It was important to understand the purpose of the dossier. It was asking two questions: Had the threat increased? If so, did we have to deal with it? The answer to both questions was yes."

Downing Street press briefing, 23 September 2002>>

I swear I saw headlines yesterday that rummy said they invaded Iraq not because of new evidence, but because of old evidence seen in a new, post-9/11 light. I thought this was just a blatant attempt to finish milking every little bit of mileage they could from 9*11, but that clearly contradicts the above UK quote. It's almost funny how their stories are starting to differ. Where is that magic UK evidence on the Niger accusation? That bush didn't seem to know about. Wouldn't they show that evidence, if they had it? They don't have it.

And the fact that blair is in like week 5 of hell and making things up, and rummy is running yet agian for the cover of 9*11 is all really pathetic. Why are we as a nation humoring these treasonous criminals?