 |
 Our report spoke to the fact that
we felt that it would have been helpful to get more complete information
in a more timely way from the Defense Department.
Information about ongoing research
activities and about the planning process at the Defense Department
and so on.
"The Pentagon has not been
forthcoming at all. In fact,
every acknowledgment they've
made of each and every
exposure they've made kicking
and screaming, each and
every step of the way." ...
Tuite
|
The Pentagon has not been forthcoming
at all. In fact, every acknowledgment they've made of each and
every exposure, they've made kicking and screaming, each and every
step of the way. In March of '94 we sent a request to the Pentagon,
requesting a whole series of information, including all information
on any chemical and biological warfare agent detections, exposures
and so on, including a request for the CENTCOM log. We got a letter
back saying that CENTCOM couldn't identify anything called a log.
And then we got a letter on May 4th of 1994 from three secretaries
of the Administration, Secretary Perry, Secretary Brown and Secretary
Shalala, that says there is no classified information that would
indicate any exposures to, or detections of, chemical or biological
weapons agents. That statement is blatantly false. It's false
based on information that has existed during the war, information
that has now been released in part through FOIA (Freedom of Information
Act) requests, other information that's on the Gulf Link,
over 10,000 reports, I believe. And some of the documents which
will provide, or which provide the historical record of the chemical
and biological and radiological exposures of the veterans during
the war, are now being written off by the Pentagon as lost or
missing due to careless handling. These were classified documents
and that kind of an admission is an admission that a criminal
offense may have occurred - i.e. in the careless handling
- and that right now the reaction to it is: so what?
I can't offer any insight into
how it took place. I know that the effect has been to undermine
the confidence of the public in the information that we have and
to raise concern that there may be other information that we don't
have. So it's not had a positive impact, that's for sure, on
the trust of the public in the information that's available to
them.
I would only add that I don't
believe that during the war the commanders intentionally withheld
information about exposures that troops were sustaining, believing
that they were causing harm. I think that that's a doctrinal
flaw that needs to be corrected. But after the war when the Pentagon
was asked to admit or to provide evidence that would indicate
that it may be responsible for tens of thousands of casualties
as a result of a mistake that they may have made, there was a
tremendous institutional reluctance to provide the kind of information,
because it would have been catastrophic to the reputation of the
institution itself and of individuals who were credited with winning
the war. That is why I believe very, very seriously that the
Pentagon cannot, or the Department of Defense cannot, be an objective
investigator of this issue.
Many of the documents that we
requested are computerized. So a simple search could have been
done to provide a quick response to the documents that the committee
had requested. You know, when you talk about a cover-up, yes,
they lied to Congress. Yes, they withheld information from Congress.
And yes, I believe that they were aware that these low-level
exposures occurred. I think it's very difficult for them at this
point to acknowledge that there is literature, for example, that
doesn't take their position that low-level exposures may be harmful.
It would be difficult for anybody. There is something called
cognitive constraint. And it's when you're looking at a particular
object or a particular set of facts with an end in mind, because
this is the way you've always looked at it and this is the way
you're going to look at it. The problem is, is that they're not
being very open. But if you're asking me if there was a cover-up
of information, the answer is unequivocally yes, and there is
now evidence that documents were destroyed as well.
The evidence is, that the Pentagon
says that the documents, one of the specific documents that we
requested back in March of 1994 and which was partially declassified
in January of 1995, they're saying that the remainder of the document
is now missing.
That is the CENTCOM nuclear, chemical
and biological warfare log.
I, myself, most of my experience
with working with my colleagues, both in academia and in government,
is that individuals are trying to do well. So I believe that conspiracy
is an over-used explanation, in my opinion, that more often it's
lack of information, mistakes, scrambling to catch up and so on. |
