Something tells me that retired General Anthony Zinni wishes that this fact had found it's way into the memory hole. He and his friends in the LSM can not be happy that Brent Hume said this today.
Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni - the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."So when Bill Clinton was in office and doing NOTHING, Saddam was unstoppable. But put a man who sees the evil in the world and calls it what it is, then Saddam was NEVER a threat to his neighbors or our friends.
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."
Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood it.
Also check out this in yesterday's WSJ.
The Generals War
What's behind the attacks against Rumsfeld.
The next to last paragraph has the best lines:
The anti-Rumsfeld generals have a right to their opinion. But there's a reason the Founders provided for civilian control of the military, and a danger in military men using their presumed authority to push elected Administrations around. As for Democrats and their media allies, we can only admire their sudden new deference to the senior U.S. officer corps, which follows their strange new respect for the "intelligence community" they also once despised. U.S. military recruiters might not be welcome on Ivy League campuses, but they're heroes when they trash the Bush Administration.