http://www.slate.com/?id=2062824Poisonal Foul
Why did the Washington Post go soft on the Pentagon?
By Scott Shuger
Posted Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 10:50 AM ET
Did the Pentagon really consider poisoning the Afghans' food supply in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks? The Washington Post unearthed some evidence that it did—and then promptly buried the news deep inside its recent forest-decimating yawnfest on the early days of the administration's response to 9/11. (Get the short version of the eight-part series from Mickey Kaus' excellent "Series-Skipper.") It's a tale that deserves further examination.
Here's the key passage served up by reporters Bob Woodward and Dan Balz:
{Defense Secretary Donald} Rumsfeld still wanted the president to have a detailed briefing. Special operations were going to be enormously important, he was sure, so a two-star general was sent from the Special Operations Command to brief the president.
Rice and Frank Miller, the senior NSC staffer for defense, went with the president to the Pentagon. Before the briefing, Miller reviewed the classified slide presentation prepared for Bush and got a big surprise.
One slide about special operations in Afghanistan said: Thinking Outside the Box—Poisoning Food Supply. Miller was shocked and showed it to Rice. The United States doesn't know how to do this, Miller reminded her, and we're not allowed. It would effectively be a chemical or biological attack—clearly banned by treaties that the United States had signed, including the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
Rice took the slide to Rumsfeld. "This slide is not going to be shown to the president of the United States," she said.
Rumsfeld agreed. "You're right," he said.
Pentagon officials said later that their own internal review had caught the offending slide and that it never would have been shown to the president or to Rumsfeld.