Post by Moses on Feb 3, 2005 23:15:03 GMT -5
2/3/2005
2002/2003 vs. 2005
Filed under: War — ross @ 12:50 am
Last night the NYT published an article revealing that "American intelligence agencies and government scientists" discoved Libya's nuclear materials came from North Korea. So certain are they, in fact, that a couple of senior National Security Council members have been visiting with our allies (and not so allies) trying to rally their support with this new and alarming evidence. Some hawks were already speeding the drumbeat, noting how we can't sit around and wait for negotiations, etc.
Had this been in the lead up to Iraq, it would have likely gone unquestioned. The press may not be as independent as we like, but they are still smarting from being so willingly used the last time and are not so eager to see a repeat. WaPo is saying "not so fast."
www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=492
2002/2003 vs. 2005
Filed under: War — ross @ 12:50 am
Last night the NYT published an article revealing that "American intelligence agencies and government scientists" discoved Libya's nuclear materials came from North Korea. So certain are they, in fact, that a couple of senior National Security Council members have been visiting with our allies (and not so allies) trying to rally their support with this new and alarming evidence. Some hawks were already speeding the drumbeat, noting how we can't sit around and wait for negotiations, etc.
Had this been in the lead up to Iraq, it would have likely gone unquestioned. The press may not be as independent as we like, but they are still smarting from being so willingly used the last time and are not so eager to see a repeat. WaPo is saying "not so fast."
The Bush administration's claim this week that North Korea appears to have been the supplier of converted uranium to Libya is based on evidence that could just as easily point to Pakistan, a key U.S. ally, as the source, according to analysts and officials familiar with the data. […]
The questions raised yesterday about the administration's evidence are significant in light of the controversy over the administration's allegations – later disproved – that Iraq had illicit arms. Several experts said the administration had to be careful in making its case to allies, given resulting skepticism.
The questions raised yesterday about the administration's evidence are significant in light of the controversy over the administration's allegations – later disproved – that Iraq had illicit arms. Several experts said the administration had to be careful in making its case to allies, given resulting skepticism.
www.itaffectsyou.org/blog/index.php?p=492