Full Version: CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat
CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat
Questions for debate:
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
I personally think that this should be a major part of the commission is to find out where the error starts. I don't think it is safe to assume that anyone is innocent. Perhaps we should think of the different parties as suspects and even though they are innocent until proven guilty, no one is completely clear of this mess.
We might be suspecting the wrong group perhaps we should be thinking that every listed idea is a feasible one. That way when we inspect it, the evidence will lead us in the correct direction.
Monty
QUOTE
WASHINGTON - In his first public defense in the growing controversy over intelligence, CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq (news - web sites) was an imminent threat. The urgency of such a threat was the main argument used by President Bush (news - web sites) for going to war.
In a speech clearly aimed at protecting the CIA from becoming a scapegoat, Tenet said analysts held varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before the war. Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House, he said.
In a speech clearly aimed at protecting the CIA from becoming a scapegoat, Tenet said analysts held varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before the war. Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House, he said.
Questions for debate:
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
I personally think that this should be a major part of the commission is to find out where the error starts. I don't think it is safe to assume that anyone is innocent. Perhaps we should think of the different parties as suspects and even though they are innocent until proven guilty, no one is completely clear of this mess.
We might be suspecting the wrong group perhaps we should be thinking that every listed idea is a feasible one. That way when we inspect it, the evidence will lead us in the correct direction.
Monty
Tenet's speech was a little different in tone than your selected quote paints it.
He stressed that Iraq was a threat, and that the threat would only increase over time.
Tenet is also sticking by his assertions that WMDs were being produced in Iraq.
He rebutted Kay's assertion that the search for WMDs was nearing an end:
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Tenet is covering his butt a bit, butt in no way did he characterize the decision to go into Iraq as the wrong one.
He stressed that Iraq was a threat, and that the threat would only increase over time.
QUOTE
Tenet said U.S. intelligence accurately reported to Bush before the war that Saddam's regime posed a danger. He revealed that two sources with high-level access to Saddam's regime told the CIA in the fall of 2002, shortly before the war, that production of biological and chemical weapons was going on inside Iraq.
Tenet is also sticking by his assertions that WMDs were being produced in Iraq.
He rebutted Kay's assertion that the search for WMDs was nearing an end:
QUOTE
"We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Tenet is covering his butt a bit, butt in no way did he characterize the decision to go into Iraq as the wrong one.
QUOTE(amlord)
He rebutted Kay's assertion that the search for WMDs was nearing an end:
"We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.
QUOTE(article)
"We are nowhere near 85 percent finished," he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.
Just how much time are we suppose to give them? The UN inspectors would have been done months ago. No one in the administration or near the administration is going to admit we are done until something is found. We cannot sit with a "policy of appeasement" whenever an issue like this is shown. Perhaps, it is time we had an completely independent investigation and the outcome of that should come out in october. Or do you think that administration has something to hide?
QUOTE(amlord)
Tenet's speech was a little different in tone than your selected quote paints it.
He stressed that Iraq was a threat, and that the threat would only increase over time.
That might be true but it was not something that he felt was as strong as a case as Bush made it out to be. (I just quoted the first two paragraph's)He stressed that Iraq was a threat, and that the threat would only increase over time.
Monty
QUOTE(Amlord @ Feb 5 2004, 01:01 PM)
Tenet is covering his butt a bit, butt in no way did he characterize the decision to go into Iraq as the wrong one.
AMLord I'm not sure where you got in the intial post that Monty thought Tenet was anti-war. I don't see that anywhere in his post...
Tenet said:
QUOTE
"They never said there was an imminent threat," Tenet said of the analysts. "Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
Bush said in preparing the country for war(among many other things):
QUOTE
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
The point of this thread, as I interpert it, is to ask why there is an inconsistency between what Bush told us a year and a half ago, and what Tenet is telling us today, NOT whether Tenet was pro-war or anti-war. Anyone who reads the attached article can see that he clearly is all for the war. The question is, was Bush purposely decieving the American public into thinking Saddam was an imminent threat and had WMD's built, even when his intelligence agencies were telling him differently? From the quotes above there is an obvious inconsistency between what the CIA was reporting as efforts which might result in WMD's being built which could threaten the "interests" of the USA. Bush is saying these weapons are THERE and exist and are an immediate threat to American insterests. Where did this gap occur?
That said...:
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
It certainly moves to further call into question what intelligence Bush was using to base his assertations of the existence of WMD's in Iraq. Perhaps it shows that the CIA was not the agency to provide such intelligence. So the question now is where did it come from? Did Lefties are going to assume Bush made it up, and Righties are going to assume Saddam somehow disposed of all the weapons. It doesn't really resolve anything.
Let's add some fuel to this fire. From this week's Newsweek cover story:
So... it seems that the intelligence was actually good.
QUOTE
NEWSWEEK has learned of two separate American government panels whose members concluded, back in 1998, that reports of Saddam's secret programs were based on suspicions, not hard data.
The first panel was an independent group of a half-dozen members, most of them distinguished scientists, called the Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Advisory Board. One of ACNAB's pursuits was to examine what was known about Iraq's weapons programs. Panel members got access to CIA materials, and were able to quiz the analysts. What they found, according to three members reached by NEWSWEEK, was that the CIA's intel on Iraqi WMD was largely speculative. "There were suspicions, hints, but nothing hard," says one member. "The agency analysts' basic argument was: 'Saddam must be hiding something, or why would he be putting his people through all this?' " The absence of hard evidence was so striking, in fact, that panel members recall discussing "the Wizard of Oz theory: that the whole Iraq WMD program was smoke-and-mirrors, and Saddam was just a little guy behind a curtain."
Donald Rumsfeld himself led the second such investigation of Iraq's weapons program that year. The brief of his congressionally appointed commission was to assess the potential ballistic-missile threat to the United States from hostile powers. What is not generally known about Rumsfeld's commission is that it also reviewed current intelligence about the WMD various countries might be able to pack in their warheads. "The commission's findings on Iraq's WMD didn't materially differ from what ACNAB had concluded," says a panel member familiar with both reports. Rumsfeld spokesman Larry DiRita says, "The commission based its conclusions regarding WMD on the prevailing [intelligence] assessments."
(snip)
And in 1995, the most senior defector to emerge from Iraq—Hussein Kamel, who had been in charge of WMD—told debriefers that Iraq had destroyed "all weapons and agents." The phantom stockpiles nonetheless served a useful purpose to those who wanted to keep Saddam in a box. As long as Iraq was incapable of refuting the existence of the VX and anthrax, it was easy to argue that sanctions should remain in place.
The first panel was an independent group of a half-dozen members, most of them distinguished scientists, called the Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Advisory Board. One of ACNAB's pursuits was to examine what was known about Iraq's weapons programs. Panel members got access to CIA materials, and were able to quiz the analysts. What they found, according to three members reached by NEWSWEEK, was that the CIA's intel on Iraqi WMD was largely speculative. "There were suspicions, hints, but nothing hard," says one member. "The agency analysts' basic argument was: 'Saddam must be hiding something, or why would he be putting his people through all this?' " The absence of hard evidence was so striking, in fact, that panel members recall discussing "the Wizard of Oz theory: that the whole Iraq WMD program was smoke-and-mirrors, and Saddam was just a little guy behind a curtain."
Donald Rumsfeld himself led the second such investigation of Iraq's weapons program that year. The brief of his congressionally appointed commission was to assess the potential ballistic-missile threat to the United States from hostile powers. What is not generally known about Rumsfeld's commission is that it also reviewed current intelligence about the WMD various countries might be able to pack in their warheads. "The commission's findings on Iraq's WMD didn't materially differ from what ACNAB had concluded," says a panel member familiar with both reports. Rumsfeld spokesman Larry DiRita says, "The commission based its conclusions regarding WMD on the prevailing [intelligence] assessments."
(snip)
And in 1995, the most senior defector to emerge from Iraq—Hussein Kamel, who had been in charge of WMD—told debriefers that Iraq had destroyed "all weapons and agents." The phantom stockpiles nonetheless served a useful purpose to those who wanted to keep Saddam in a box. As long as Iraq was incapable of refuting the existence of the VX and anthrax, it was easy to argue that sanctions should remain in place.
So... it seems that the intelligence was actually good.
QUOTE
The point of this thread, as I interpert it, is to ask why there is an inconsistency between what Bush told us a year and a half ago, and what Tenet is telling us today, NOT whether Tenet was pro-war or anti-war. Anyone who reads the attached article can see that he clearly is all for the war. The question is, was Bush purposely deceiving the American public into thinking Saddam was an imminent threat and had WMD's built, even when his intelligence agencies were telling him differently?
That may well be the point of the thread, but the title of the thread makes it sound (but the media isn't liberal) as if Tenet was not defending the war. A better title might have been "CIA chief defends intelligence and the war" since that is what he did. Also AGAIN for the MILLIONTH time Bush NEVER said Iraq was an imminent threat!! He said they were a gathering or growing threat just like Tenet said TODAY.
QUOTE
NEWSWEEK has learned of two separate American government panels whose members concluded, back in 1998, that reports of Saddam's secret programs were based on suspicions, not hard data.
The first panel was an independent group of a half-dozen members, most of them distinguished scientists, called the Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Advisory Board. One of ACNAB's pursuits was to examine what was known about Iraq's weapons programs. Panel members got access to CIA materials, and were able to quiz the analysts. What they found, according to three members reached by NEWSWEEK, was that the CIA's intel on Iraqi WMD was largely speculative. "There were suspicions, hints, but nothing hard," says one member. "The agency analysts' basic argument was: 'Saddam must be hiding something, or why would he be putting his people through all this?' " The absence of hard evidence was so striking, in fact, that panel members recall discussing "the Wizard of Oz theory: that the whole Iraq WMD program was smoke-and-mirrors, and Saddam was just a little guy behind a curtain."
The first panel was an independent group of a half-dozen members, most of them distinguished scientists, called the Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Advisory Board. One of ACNAB's pursuits was to examine what was known about Iraq's weapons programs. Panel members got access to CIA materials, and were able to quiz the analysts. What they found, according to three members reached by NEWSWEEK, was that the CIA's intel on Iraqi WMD was largely speculative. "There were suspicions, hints, but nothing hard," says one member. "The agency analysts' basic argument was: 'Saddam must be hiding something, or why would he be putting his people through all this?' " The absence of hard evidence was so striking, in fact, that panel members recall discussing "the Wizard of Oz theory: that the whole Iraq WMD program was smoke-and-mirrors, and Saddam was just a little guy behind a curtain."
Well since Clinton said that he was ordering the bombing of Iraq because of their continued efforts to build chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons isn't it obvious that most of the analysts believed they had said weapons? Tenet and Rumsfeld have both stated that there is always dissent when it comes to intelligence, but the majority believed that Iraq had WMD. You can point to "some analysts say...." all day long, but it gets you nowhere. Where were all the independent investigations in 1998 when Clinton made his case to drop bombs?? Oh yeah thats right.....he was a democrat, why would anyone question him?! The hypocracy of the Democrats in Congress is appauling. Blame the Bush administration, but don't utter a word about the intelligence that said THE SAME THING under Clinton! This is why I laugh at some of you who blame the administration. You have no credability when you chastize the current administration, but accept Clinton's EXACT same case.
For the record I supported the 1998 bombings of both Iraq and Bosnia. I know you will say its easy for me to say that now because I wasn't here for the debates then, but IF (BIG IF) Kerry gets elected you will see that I'm not a blind partisan.
QUOTE
So... it seems that the intelligence was actually good.
The MINORITY was good, the MAJORITY (Tenet included) was wrong. When it comes to matters of national security I would prefer our president error on the side of not only caution but the majority as well and thats what Bush AND Clinton did.
This is what I gathered from Tenet's speech.
Because Saddam did not fully disclose his weapons programs with international authorities, we were forced to make a judgement call on weather he constituted a threat. Saddam was in the process of developing these weapons of mass destruction and if left to his own devices, would of produced such weapons and would of been a threat to the Middle East and our forces in the region.
There was never a definitive statement on whether he constituted such a threat. The intel was provided and at face value, the intel provided a picture, although muddled showing Iraq possessing WMD's in only a few years time. Now should Bush of ran with the stockpile bit, and made it the focus of the push for war, no. I've said that time and again, Bush should of brought other elements into the equasion in the case for war.
Tenet did bring up a good point. When intel (which is not always crystal clear) paints a picture and you aren't sure what to think at first glance, where do you look to? History. In his speech, Tenet showed how Iraq's track record of using such weapons, it's hostility towards it's neighbors, and it's non-compliance and constant unwillingness and contempt for working with UN Weapons Inspectors was important in the evaluation of the threat the regime posed.
Uh, no? Honestly, will you believe that UN inspectors, after doing the song and dance with the regime for over a decade, would of been finished all of the sudden months ago? No way. Saddam would of continued his mastery of deciet, as Tenet pointed out a defected regime official quoted, and in a matter of years Saddam would of physically had Nuclear, Biologiacal, and/or Chmical weapons. Would you rather we have gone into Iraq then, the result being thousands more soldiers dead or dying as a result of a tactical nuke, VX, or anthrax attacks?
Now, the questions you posed....
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Well, if the commission was looking for a scapegoat, yeah. Tenet put out the word that the CIA was not to blame. And they're not. But if the commission is looking for ways to insure that intel is acted on in an appropriate manner, no.
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
I sort of answered this question in that last line. When it comes down to it, intelligence does not act on it's own, those in charge act on intelligence. The intel was good. Now would I of disseminated that intel to the American people the way Bush had when he made his case for war? No. I dont think the manner in which Bush did that was smart. Now, would I of acted on the intel in the manner Bush did? You bet. It was going to happen sooner or later. Might as well do it before he can torment the rest of the world with his weapons.
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Because Saddam did not fully disclose his weapons programs with international authorities, we were forced to make a judgement call on weather he constituted a threat. Saddam was in the process of developing these weapons of mass destruction and if left to his own devices, would of produced such weapons and would of been a threat to the Middle East and our forces in the region.
There was never a definitive statement on whether he constituted such a threat. The intel was provided and at face value, the intel provided a picture, although muddled showing Iraq possessing WMD's in only a few years time. Now should Bush of ran with the stockpile bit, and made it the focus of the push for war, no. I've said that time and again, Bush should of brought other elements into the equasion in the case for war.
Tenet did bring up a good point. When intel (which is not always crystal clear) paints a picture and you aren't sure what to think at first glance, where do you look to? History. In his speech, Tenet showed how Iraq's track record of using such weapons, it's hostility towards it's neighbors, and it's non-compliance and constant unwillingness and contempt for working with UN Weapons Inspectors was important in the evaluation of the threat the regime posed.
QUOTE
Just how much time are we suppose to give them? The UN inspectors would have been done months ago.
Uh, no? Honestly, will you believe that UN inspectors, after doing the song and dance with the regime for over a decade, would of been finished all of the sudden months ago? No way. Saddam would of continued his mastery of deciet, as Tenet pointed out a defected regime official quoted, and in a matter of years Saddam would of physically had Nuclear, Biologiacal, and/or Chmical weapons. Would you rather we have gone into Iraq then, the result being thousands more soldiers dead or dying as a result of a tactical nuke, VX, or anthrax attacks?
Now, the questions you posed....
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Well, if the commission was looking for a scapegoat, yeah. Tenet put out the word that the CIA was not to blame. And they're not. But if the commission is looking for ways to insure that intel is acted on in an appropriate manner, no.
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
I sort of answered this question in that last line. When it comes down to it, intelligence does not act on it's own, those in charge act on intelligence. The intel was good. Now would I of disseminated that intel to the American people the way Bush had when he made his case for war? No. I dont think the manner in which Bush did that was smart. Now, would I of acted on the intel in the manner Bush did? You bet. It was going to happen sooner or later. Might as well do it before he can torment the rest of the world with his weapons.
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Some critics have argued that Bush and his aides "cherry-picked" intelligence findings. Playing up the ones they liked, while downplaying those that contradicted the cherry-picked intelligence items that suited their interests. If we follow that line of reasoning for a bit, it's easy to see how they can repeat this "nothing is 100% true, we can't be blamed for that" defense. It also allows Tenent to defend the agency without contradicting Bush and vice versa. No one denies that this administration and the neocons were looking for a way to get rid of Saddam Hussein(thanks Paul O'Neill)
QUOTE(Venom)
That may well be the point of the thread, but the title of the thread makes it sound (but the media isn't liberal) as if Tenet was not defending the war. A better title might have been "CIA chief defends intelligence and the war" since that is what he did. Also AGAIN for the MILLIONTH time Bush NEVER said Iraq was an imminent threat!! He said they were a gathering or growing threat just like Tenet said TODAY.
This is a current event article. I took the topic from the article. I think if you looked you would see that. I was in no way trying to make this an antiwar thread. I just want people to question their own convictions.
QUOTE( Titus)
Uh, no? Honestly, will you believe that UN inspectors, after doing the song and dance with the regime for over a decade, would of been finished all of the sudden months ago? No way. Saddam would of continued his mastery of deciet, as Tenet pointed out a defected regime official quoted, and in a matter of years Saddam would of physically had Nuclear, Biologiacal, and/or Chmical weapons. Would you rather we have gone into Iraq then, the result being thousands more soldiers dead or dying as a result of a tactical nuke, VX, or anthrax attacks?
Unfortunately titus, it is the UN's job to inspect and decide the course of action. The US can present a case, but the UN needs to decide on that course. If the UN was satisfied with the weapons inspections than that is the end of the deal. If they weren't and they requested we invoke force to try to get more information, then we would have a set guideline of which to approach the situation and work to get the information out of Iraq. However, we sidestepped the UN process and went to war. This act of aggression is fully and completely against the UN charter(that the US helped set up).
QUOTE(Venom)
Well since Clinton said that he was ordering the bombing of Iraq because of their continued efforts to build chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons isn't it obvious that most of the analysts believed they had said weapons? Tenet and Rumsfeld have both stated that there is always dissent when it comes to intelligence, but the majority believed that Iraq had WMD. You can point to "some analysts say...." all day long, but it gets you nowhere. Where were all the independent investigations in 1998 when Clinton made his case to drop bombs?? Oh yeah thats right.....he was a democrat, why would anyone question him?! The hypocracy of the Democrats in Congress is appauling. Blame the Bush administration, but don't utter a word about the intelligence that said THE SAME THING under Clinton! This is why I laugh at some of you who blame the administration. You have no credability when you chastize the current administration, but accept Clinton's EXACT same case.
I don't believe I said anything about the Clinton administration or thinking they are off the hook, in fact I do believe I said.
QUOTE(Monty)
I personally think that this should be a major part of the commission is to find out where the error starts. I don't think it is safe to assume that anyone is innocent. Perhaps we should think of the different parties as suspects and even though they are innocent until proven guilty, no one is completely clear of this mess.
Don't be putting words in my mouth.
Monty
QUOTE
This is a current event article. I took the topic from the article. I think if you looked you would see that. I was in no way trying to make this an antiwar thread. I just want people to question their own convictions.
I know that was the title of the article and thats why I said
QUOTE
That may well be the point of the thread, but the title of the thread makes it sound (but the media isn't liberal)
I was taking a shot at the media not you.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Venom)
Well since Clinton said that he was ordering the bombing of Iraq because of their continued efforts to build chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons isn't it obvious that most of the analysts believed they had said weapons? Tenet and Rumsfeld have both stated that there is always dissent when it comes to intelligence, but the majority believed that Iraq had WMD. You can point to "some analysts say...." all day long, but it gets you nowhere. Where were all the independent investigations in 1998 when Clinton made his case to drop bombs?? Oh yeah thats right.....he was a democrat, why would anyone question him?! The hypocracy of the Democrats in Congress is appauling. Blame the Bush administration, but don't utter a word about the intelligence that said THE SAME THING under Clinton! This is why I laugh at some of you who blame the administration. You have no credability when you chastize the current administration, but accept Clinton's EXACT same case.
I don't believe I said anything about the Clinton administration or thinking they are off the hook, in fact I do believe I said.
QUOTE (Monty)
I personally think that this should be a major part of the commission is to find out where the error starts. I don't think it is safe to assume that anyone is innocent. Perhaps we should think of the different parties as suspects and even though they are innocent until proven guilty, no one is completely clear of this mess.
Don't be putting words in my mouth.
Well since Clinton said that he was ordering the bombing of Iraq because of their continued efforts to build chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons isn't it obvious that most of the analysts believed they had said weapons? Tenet and Rumsfeld have both stated that there is always dissent when it comes to intelligence, but the majority believed that Iraq had WMD. You can point to "some analysts say...." all day long, but it gets you nowhere. Where were all the independent investigations in 1998 when Clinton made his case to drop bombs?? Oh yeah thats right.....he was a democrat, why would anyone question him?! The hypocracy of the Democrats in Congress is appauling. Blame the Bush administration, but don't utter a word about the intelligence that said THE SAME THING under Clinton! This is why I laugh at some of you who blame the administration. You have no credability when you chastize the current administration, but accept Clinton's EXACT same case.
I don't believe I said anything about the Clinton administration or thinking they are off the hook, in fact I do believe I said.
QUOTE (Monty)
I personally think that this should be a major part of the commission is to find out where the error starts. I don't think it is safe to assume that anyone is innocent. Perhaps we should think of the different parties as suspects and even though they are innocent until proven guilty, no one is completely clear of this mess.
Don't be putting words in my mouth.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth! I wasn't even responding to anything you posted there. I was responding to an article that AMF posted. Calm down. My response was aimed at all the partisan posters here that won't acknowledge that Clinton acted on the SAME intelligence that Bush did and made the same assumptions about their weapons capabilities. Just because I responded to you in part of my post doesn't mean the whole thing pertained to you.
I think you guys and girls are missing the point.
Bush and Cheney both repeatedly said they had NO Doubt that Saddam had massive inventories of WMD and they implied that he was an imminent threat to our National Security.
But what does Tenet say?
A direct contradiction of what both Bush and Cheney said. Tenet may not have realized it but he's just called both the President and Cheney bold faced liars.
Don't worry, you won't see such conclusions in our vaunted mainstream media.
Bush and Cheney both repeatedly said they had NO Doubt that Saddam had massive inventories of WMD and they implied that he was an imminent threat to our National Security.
But what does Tenet say?
QUOTE
Washington Post
Defending the agency for the first time since his own weapons expert said prewar intelligence on Iraq was "all wrong," Tenet acknowledged that the CIA made misjudgments but said the agency worked hard to provide a careful and nuanced assessment regarding weapons of mass destruction.
"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs, and those debates were spelled out in the estimate," he said. "They never said there was an imminent threat."
Defending the agency for the first time since his own weapons expert said prewar intelligence on Iraq was "all wrong," Tenet acknowledged that the CIA made misjudgments but said the agency worked hard to provide a careful and nuanced assessment regarding weapons of mass destruction.
"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs, and those debates were spelled out in the estimate," he said. "They never said there was an imminent threat."
A direct contradiction of what both Bush and Cheney said. Tenet may not have realized it but he's just called both the President and Cheney bold faced liars.
Don't worry, you won't see such conclusions in our vaunted mainstream media.
This is the AP we're talking here, they're about as liberal as the 1950's. Here's two headlines you tell me which will make you pick up a paper and buy it:
"CIA HEAD SAYS SADDAM WAS NOT AN 'IMMINENT THREAT'" (which he did)
"CIA HEAD DEFENDS U.S. GOING TO WAR." (which he did)
One of those is a lot more interesting than the other. Look at me defending the media
I think it's obvious that media is biased towards something, I just don't agree that it's biased towards being liberal. It's about manufacturing news on slow days and making money, the bottom line. But that's way off topic, couldn't resist the off-topic shot.
Did you even read my post? Bush argued this country into support of the war by saying Iraq had a stockpile of weapons he could use at any moment. That he was building a nuclear weapons program and that he was a serious threat to everyone in the Middle East and possibly beyond. This was the argument to go to war now instead of waiting for UN and thus united deployment of troops.
We'll never know what Hans Blix would have achieved or what would have happened, because instead of patience we used force and traded over 500 American lives for a cause I'm still not clear on, since it seems to change every couple of months.
"CIA HEAD SAYS SADDAM WAS NOT AN 'IMMINENT THREAT'" (which he did)
"CIA HEAD DEFENDS U.S. GOING TO WAR." (which he did)
One of those is a lot more interesting than the other. Look at me defending the media
I think it's obvious that media is biased towards something, I just don't agree that it's biased towards being liberal. It's about manufacturing news on slow days and making money, the bottom line. But that's way off topic, couldn't resist the off-topic shot.QUOTE
Also AGAIN for the MILLIONTH time Bush NEVER said Iraq was an imminent threat!! He said they were a gathering or growing threat just like Tenet said TODAY.
Did you even read my post? Bush argued this country into support of the war by saying Iraq had a stockpile of weapons he could use at any moment. That he was building a nuclear weapons program and that he was a serious threat to everyone in the Middle East and possibly beyond. This was the argument to go to war now instead of waiting for UN and thus united deployment of troops.
We'll never know what Hans Blix would have achieved or what would have happened, because instead of patience we used force and traded over 500 American lives for a cause I'm still not clear on, since it seems to change every couple of months.
QUOTE(Titus @ Feb 6 2004, 12:19 AM)
QUOTE
Just how much time are we suppose to give them? The UN inspectors would have been done months ago.
Uh, no? Honestly, will you believe that UN inspectors, after doing the song and dance with the regime for over a decade, would of been finished all of the sudden months ago? No way. Saddam would of continued his mastery of deciet, as Tenet pointed out a defected regime official quoted, and in a matter of years Saddam would of physically had Nuclear, Biologiacal, and/or Chmical weapons.
Um, that's not necesarily true. Blix and co found that the Iraqis suddenly became more cooperating once the US/UK anti-Saddam rhetoric began, particulalry once troop numbers began rising in the Gulf. Of course, the inspectors didn't find anything much, because (as we now know, and as we didn't at the time know) there was precious little, if anything, to be found.
It is not inconceivable that Saddam's bluff could have been called without a shot being fired, which may well have undermined his "Strong Man of the Arabs" image and led to his overthrow. Such ideas are not outside the bounds of possibility, but of course, we will never know no, will we?
Not only will we not know that this is a fanciful idea beloved of cheese eating surrender monkeys (it being more or less identical to the official French opinion), but we will also never know whether it was a spot on assessment and the best of all possible outcomes.
[quote]"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs, and those debates were spelled out in the estimate," he said. "They never said there was an imminent threat."[/quote]
I love how the libs hang on to dear life to this quote. This is their vindication. Their 'we told you so'.
But I wonder if they read a lil more into that quote or if they read the rest of his statement at all.
The quote I have above tells me that the jury was still out as far as the analysts were concerned and in an appropriate manner, refused to make a definitive answer. Does that clear Saddam of being a threat? I don't think so. If Saddam did not constitute a threat, the CIA would of said so, much to the chegrin of the administration.
Now, look at these other quotes from the rest of Tenet's speech.....
[quote]"Over eight years of inspections, Saddam's deceptions and the increasingly restrictive rules of engagements U.N. inspectors were forced to negotiate with the regime undermined efforts to disarm him." [/quote]
[quote] "To conclude before the war that Saddam had no interest in rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction programs, we would have had to ignore his long and brutal history of using them."[/quote]
[quote]"To conclude before the war that Saddam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify."[/quote]
In other words, since intel is never a 'crystal ball', history is the best thing to go off of. Why don't we let felons have handguns? Because of a HISTORY of VIOLENCE.
[quote]"So what did our estimates say? Let's start with missile and other delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.
Our community said with high confidence that Saddam was continuing and expanding his missile programs, contrary to U.N. resolutions. He had missiles and other systems with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions and he was seeking missiles with even longer ranges.
What do we know today? Since the war we have found an aggressive Iraqi missile program concealed from the international community." [/quote]
I ask you, would you consider that a threat?
[quote]"In fact, David Kay just last fall said that the Iraq Survey Group, quote, "discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if Operation Iraqi Freedom had not occurred, dramatically breached U.N. restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War." [/quote]
He goes on to describe other breeches in UN resolutions regarding missiles and finishes by saying..
[quote]"My provisional bottom line on missiles: We were generally on target."[/quote]
Tenet ON UAV's.....
[quote] "The estimate said that Iraq had been developing an unmanned aerial vehicle probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.
Baghdad's existing unmanned aerial vehicle could threaten its neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and, if a small unmanned aerial vehicle was brought close to our shores, the United States itself.
What do we know today?
The Iraq Survey Group found that two separate groups in Iraq were working on a number of unmanned aerial vehicles designed that were hidden from the U.N. until Iraq's declaration in December of 2002.
Now we know that important design elements were never fully declared.
The question of intent, especially regarding the smaller unmanned aerial vehicle, is still out there. But we should remember that the Iraqis flight tested an aerial biological weapons spray system intended for a large unmanned aerial vehicle.
A senior Iraqi official has now admit that their two large unmanned vehicles, one developed in the early '90s and the other under development in late 2000, were intended for the delivery of biological weapons.
My provisional bottom line today: We detected the development of prohibited and undeclared unmanned aerial vehicles. But the jury is still out on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller unmanned aerial vehicle to deliver biological weapons."[/quote]
UAVs with the capability to deliver biological weapons, huh? Sounds like intel a leader of a country with forces in the region would act on.
Tenet on nukes...
[quote]"In the estimate, all agencies agree that Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons. Most were convinced that he still had a program and if he obtained fissile material he could have a weapon within a year.
But we detected no such acquisition.
We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."[/quote]
Now he does go on to say that although there is no evidence that the regime had physically produced a nuke. But he also says...
[quote]"Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some point."[/quote]
Now, I ask you this. Should we of waited until 2007 or 2009 until Saddam actually acquired one?
Tenet on biological weapons....
[quote]"We believe that Iraq had lethal biological weapons agents, including anthrax, which it could quickly produce and weaponize for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives.
But we said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal.
What do we know today? Last fall the Iraqi Survey Group uncovered, quote, "significant information, including research and development of biological weapons, applicable organisms, the involvement of the Iraqi intelligence service in possible biological weapons activities and deliberate concealment activities."
All of this suggests that Iraq, after 1996, further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of biological weapons agents.
The Iraq Survey Group found a network of laboratories and safe houses controlled by Iraqi intelligence and security services that contained equipment for chemical and biological research and a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological weapons agents that were not declared to the United Nations.
It also appears that Iraq had the infrastructure and the talent to resume production, but we have yet to find that it actually did so, nor have we found weapons."[/quote]
[quote]"My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop biological weapons. Clearly, research and development work was under way that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not yet know if production took place. And just as clearly, we have not yet found biological weapons."[/quote]
So the regime was trying to jumstart a bio-weapons program, with pieces already in place. The only pieces that were missing were the weapons.
Tenet on chemical weapons....
[quote]"We said in the estimate with high confidence that Iraq had them. We also believed, though with less certainty, that Saddam had stocked at least 100 metric tons of agent.
That may sound like a lot, but it would fit in a few dorm rooms on this campus. And the last time I remember, they're not very big rooms.
Initially, the community was skeptical about whether Iraq had started chemical weapons agent production. Sources had reported that Iraq had begun renewed production and imagery and intercepts gave us additional concerns. But only when analysts saw what they believed to be satellite photos of shipments of materials from ammunition sites did they believe that Iraq was again producing chemical weapons agents.
What do we know today?
The work done so far shows a story similar to that of his biological weapons program. Saddam had rebuilt a dual-use industry. David Kay reported that Saddam and his son Uday wanted to know how long it would take for Iraq to produce chemical weapons.
However, while some sources indicate Iraq may have conducted some experiments related to developing chemical weapons, no physical evidence has yet been uncovered. We need more time."
My provisional bottom line today: Saddam had the intent and capability to quickly convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production. However, we have not yet found the weapons we expected. [/quote]
A situation similar to the bio-weapons development.
So it appears that they had all the key signs of a building threat, but without a 'smoking gun' (which even Davis Kay said it was never about), they knew it would be hard to for other countries, those not keen on war, to bill the regime as a threat. So although Tenet stated that the CIA did not say Saddam was a threat, he also points out that there was more than enough reason to do so.
I love how the libs hang on to dear life to this quote. This is their vindication. Their 'we told you so'.
But I wonder if they read a lil more into that quote or if they read the rest of his statement at all.
The quote I have above tells me that the jury was still out as far as the analysts were concerned and in an appropriate manner, refused to make a definitive answer. Does that clear Saddam of being a threat? I don't think so. If Saddam did not constitute a threat, the CIA would of said so, much to the chegrin of the administration.
Now, look at these other quotes from the rest of Tenet's speech.....
[quote]"Over eight years of inspections, Saddam's deceptions and the increasingly restrictive rules of engagements U.N. inspectors were forced to negotiate with the regime undermined efforts to disarm him." [/quote]
[quote] "To conclude before the war that Saddam had no interest in rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction programs, we would have had to ignore his long and brutal history of using them."[/quote]
[quote]"To conclude before the war that Saddam had destroyed his existing weapons, we would have had to ignore what the United Nations and allied intelligence said they could not verify."[/quote]
In other words, since intel is never a 'crystal ball', history is the best thing to go off of. Why don't we let felons have handguns? Because of a HISTORY of VIOLENCE.
[quote]"So what did our estimates say? Let's start with missile and other delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.
Our community said with high confidence that Saddam was continuing and expanding his missile programs, contrary to U.N. resolutions. He had missiles and other systems with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions and he was seeking missiles with even longer ranges.
What do we know today? Since the war we have found an aggressive Iraqi missile program concealed from the international community." [/quote]
I ask you, would you consider that a threat?
[quote]"In fact, David Kay just last fall said that the Iraq Survey Group, quote, "discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if Operation Iraqi Freedom had not occurred, dramatically breached U.N. restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War." [/quote]
He goes on to describe other breeches in UN resolutions regarding missiles and finishes by saying..
[quote]"My provisional bottom line on missiles: We were generally on target."[/quote]
Tenet ON UAV's.....
[quote] "The estimate said that Iraq had been developing an unmanned aerial vehicle probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents.
Baghdad's existing unmanned aerial vehicle could threaten its neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf and, if a small unmanned aerial vehicle was brought close to our shores, the United States itself.
What do we know today?
The Iraq Survey Group found that two separate groups in Iraq were working on a number of unmanned aerial vehicles designed that were hidden from the U.N. until Iraq's declaration in December of 2002.
Now we know that important design elements were never fully declared.
The question of intent, especially regarding the smaller unmanned aerial vehicle, is still out there. But we should remember that the Iraqis flight tested an aerial biological weapons spray system intended for a large unmanned aerial vehicle.
A senior Iraqi official has now admit that their two large unmanned vehicles, one developed in the early '90s and the other under development in late 2000, were intended for the delivery of biological weapons.
My provisional bottom line today: We detected the development of prohibited and undeclared unmanned aerial vehicles. But the jury is still out on whether Iraq intended to use its newer, smaller unmanned aerial vehicle to deliver biological weapons."[/quote]
UAVs with the capability to deliver biological weapons, huh? Sounds like intel a leader of a country with forces in the region would act on.
Tenet on nukes...
[quote]"In the estimate, all agencies agree that Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons. Most were convinced that he still had a program and if he obtained fissile material he could have a weapon within a year.
But we detected no such acquisition.
We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."[/quote]
Now he does go on to say that although there is no evidence that the regime had physically produced a nuke. But he also says...
[quote]"Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some point."[/quote]
Now, I ask you this. Should we of waited until 2007 or 2009 until Saddam actually acquired one?
Tenet on biological weapons....
[quote]"We believe that Iraq had lethal biological weapons agents, including anthrax, which it could quickly produce and weaponize for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives.
But we said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agent or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal.
What do we know today? Last fall the Iraqi Survey Group uncovered, quote, "significant information, including research and development of biological weapons, applicable organisms, the involvement of the Iraqi intelligence service in possible biological weapons activities and deliberate concealment activities."
All of this suggests that Iraq, after 1996, further compartmentalized its program and focused on maintaining smaller covert capabilities that could be activated quickly to surge the production of biological weapons agents.
The Iraq Survey Group found a network of laboratories and safe houses controlled by Iraqi intelligence and security services that contained equipment for chemical and biological research and a prison laboratory complex possibly used in human testing for biological weapons agents that were not declared to the United Nations.
It also appears that Iraq had the infrastructure and the talent to resume production, but we have yet to find that it actually did so, nor have we found weapons."[/quote]
[quote]"My provisional bottom line today: Iraq intended to develop biological weapons. Clearly, research and development work was under way that would have permitted a rapid shift to agent production if seed stocks were available. But we do not yet know if production took place. And just as clearly, we have not yet found biological weapons."[/quote]
So the regime was trying to jumstart a bio-weapons program, with pieces already in place. The only pieces that were missing were the weapons.
Tenet on chemical weapons....
[quote]"We said in the estimate with high confidence that Iraq had them. We also believed, though with less certainty, that Saddam had stocked at least 100 metric tons of agent.
That may sound like a lot, but it would fit in a few dorm rooms on this campus. And the last time I remember, they're not very big rooms.
Initially, the community was skeptical about whether Iraq had started chemical weapons agent production. Sources had reported that Iraq had begun renewed production and imagery and intercepts gave us additional concerns. But only when analysts saw what they believed to be satellite photos of shipments of materials from ammunition sites did they believe that Iraq was again producing chemical weapons agents.
What do we know today?
The work done so far shows a story similar to that of his biological weapons program. Saddam had rebuilt a dual-use industry. David Kay reported that Saddam and his son Uday wanted to know how long it would take for Iraq to produce chemical weapons.
However, while some sources indicate Iraq may have conducted some experiments related to developing chemical weapons, no physical evidence has yet been uncovered. We need more time."
My provisional bottom line today: Saddam had the intent and capability to quickly convert civilian industry to chemical weapons production. However, we have not yet found the weapons we expected. [/quote]
A situation similar to the bio-weapons development.
So it appears that they had all the key signs of a building threat, but without a 'smoking gun' (which even Davis Kay said it was never about), they knew it would be hard to for other countries, those not keen on war, to bill the regime as a threat. So although Tenet stated that the CIA did not say Saddam was a threat, he also points out that there was more than enough reason to do so.
Titus,
I think you're overshooting the scope of the debate here. Again, I'm not and I don't think anyone else is arguing within this thread whether we should have gone to war or not. We're trying to discuss if there is an inconsistency between what Tenet is saying and what Bush stated as fact to lead us to war.
Also, Please try to avoid using over-generalizations like "libs hang on to blah blah blah" it's really counter-productive to the debate on the table here. I don't consider myself a liberal anymore then you consider yourself an imperialist or a facist. There's a lot more to the political specturum then an us vs. them mentaility between liberals and conservatives.
Bush said their WERE weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that he was in a position to use them IMMEDIATELY.
Now maybe, there were and are other reasons to go to war in Iraq, but those were NOT the reasons that were cited to move popular opinion his way before the war began (including the popular opinion in the senate and congress). The reasons which were touted prominently was the belief that Saddam DEFINITELY had WMD's. Now it turns out the actual evidence points to the contrary.
Who is responsible? According to what you've written above me here, no one is. The CIA was looking at history instead of actual facts, and Bush was misinformed by someone. This does not change the fact that Bush is citing historical conjecture as absolute fact and using it as a motivation for war.
Anti-war activists at the time before the war and during the protests often asked "Show us the proof." They wanted to be sure that the primary rationale for goint to war that Saddam had a loaded gun and the finger to use it, was true. Now it turns out, according to Bush himself, that this intelligence was in fact not true. So almost all of the arguments previously made for the war(before the majority of people started to doubt the existence of WMD's) were false.
And you expect the people who didn't believe in the war not to question this? Should we just forget about it? Is that why Bush has created a panel to inquiry into this precise issue? Obviously it IS important, and Bush does feel responsible for misleading the American public with facts which were false, otherwise he would not be creating this panel.
I've already answered the questions for debate. But I do think someone is responsible for misleading the American public, and I'd be really happy to find out who. It's too late to push this issue away as irrelevant when it's already been used as the primary justification for going to war at a time when this country already has too many enemies.
I think you're overshooting the scope of the debate here. Again, I'm not and I don't think anyone else is arguing within this thread whether we should have gone to war or not. We're trying to discuss if there is an inconsistency between what Tenet is saying and what Bush stated as fact to lead us to war.
Also, Please try to avoid using over-generalizations like "libs hang on to blah blah blah" it's really counter-productive to the debate on the table here. I don't consider myself a liberal anymore then you consider yourself an imperialist or a facist. There's a lot more to the political specturum then an us vs. them mentaility between liberals and conservatives.
Bush said their WERE weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that he was in a position to use them IMMEDIATELY.
QUOTE
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
Now maybe, there were and are other reasons to go to war in Iraq, but those were NOT the reasons that were cited to move popular opinion his way before the war began (including the popular opinion in the senate and congress). The reasons which were touted prominently was the belief that Saddam DEFINITELY had WMD's. Now it turns out the actual evidence points to the contrary.
Who is responsible? According to what you've written above me here, no one is. The CIA was looking at history instead of actual facts, and Bush was misinformed by someone. This does not change the fact that Bush is citing historical conjecture as absolute fact and using it as a motivation for war.
Anti-war activists at the time before the war and during the protests often asked "Show us the proof." They wanted to be sure that the primary rationale for goint to war that Saddam had a loaded gun and the finger to use it, was true. Now it turns out, according to Bush himself, that this intelligence was in fact not true. So almost all of the arguments previously made for the war(before the majority of people started to doubt the existence of WMD's) were false.
And you expect the people who didn't believe in the war not to question this? Should we just forget about it? Is that why Bush has created a panel to inquiry into this precise issue? Obviously it IS important, and Bush does feel responsible for misleading the American public with facts which were false, otherwise he would not be creating this panel.
I've already answered the questions for debate. But I do think someone is responsible for misleading the American public, and I'd be really happy to find out who. It's too late to push this issue away as irrelevant when it's already been used as the primary justification for going to war at a time when this country already has too many enemies.
Bush wasnt misinformed by anyone. As Ive said before, intel does not act on people, people act on intel. I was in an US Army MI school for a short while and we were taught that we are not responsible for the consequences of those who act on our intel. (the intel being a solidly based estimate, which Tenet shows pre war intel was). So does that make Bush wrong. Hell no. I agree that (and if I've said it once I've said it a million times) the administration should of shown all the elements to the war equation, (i.e. all the stuff Tenet pointed out in his speech) but is Bush guilty of any misleading or lying? No. He made a decision on the intel. Would it of been better to act when Saddam was busy spraying chem or bio agents on our troops in the region? No.
If someone's drunk and insistant on driving home and you have to forcefully take the keys to their car before they get behind the wheel, is that wrong? No. So why should taking out Saddam's regime before they 'got behind the wheels of WMD' be any different? Bush acted on solid intel.
BTW, loved the imperialist crack!
If someone's drunk and insistant on driving home and you have to forcefully take the keys to their car before they get behind the wheel, is that wrong? No. So why should taking out Saddam's regime before they 'got behind the wheels of WMD' be any different? Bush acted on solid intel.
BTW, loved the imperialist crack!
From Titus:
Titus, your comparison and logic are deeply flawed. Here's why:
First, Saddam was never a threat to his neighbors. The Iran/Iraq war started because of disputed territories. Saddam told our state department he was going to reclaim the Kuwait oil fields because they were slant drilling into his, and our state department told him to go for it (our policy was not to get involved in border disputes - the cause of 100% the wars in that region. Iraq is not a special case). He did, the world got mad, and we booted him out.
Secondly, Iran, Korea, Russia, and Libya are the key suppliers of WMD and WMD technology (according to the CIA website). Iraq is not even on the radar screen.
Thirdly, I challenge you to name me one Iraqi person ever involved in international terrorism. Just one...that's all I ask. Careful of who you suggest if you're going with the WTC 1 attack and Bush 41 attempt. Just a friendly hint. In any case, there is no way-no how anybody could ever credibly show Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism (for those in Rio Linde, this is the type that would affect us).
So, what we had is another Milosivec, Castro, Kim, or whoever in charge of a country with 3 factions vying for control of the country (Baathists, Shiites, and Kurds). It's no coincidence, right or wrong, that many Arab countries are ruled with an iron hand.
So, to recap - we have a country that has never attacked another country in the name of terrorism, has never been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has never been a supplier of WMD. The WMD he did use back in the Iran/Iraq war was limited in scope, supplied and sanctioned by us, and never used again. Just like us when we killed a few hundred thousand innocents with them.
So, our intelligence would have to confirm all that CHANGED. It didn't. If all the facts were in reverse (meaning, he was a threat to his neighbors and the world, he had a history of selling off WMD, etc), your premise would be entirely accurate. Based on history, we would need to act with the best intel we had.
HOWEVER, THAT HISTORY DID NOT EXIST.
Now, we're revising the ends to justify the means by suggesting that he could have had these things. So now, we're basically destroying countries for getting bigger and stronger.
Iraq was never an imminent threat because he wasn't even a long term threat. It is true that Bush never muttered the words "Iraq is an imminent threat", but with everything him and his administration had stated inferring the same, the Bush apologists have went all Clinton on us - "Well, it depends on the meaning of 'grave' or 'immediate'".
And here's the problem I really have with the Bush apologists. We just cashed our only preemptive strike check on Iraq. I was a believer in the Bush doctrine, but was thinking along the lines of Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Libya. All of these countries have the history your premise suggests. If evidence came through that our failure to act would cause grave consequences, based on their history, I would agree we need to act.
But it did not. Now my kids are in danger (obviously, not just mine) because we just made our part of the world more dangerous. If all those Muslims in that part of the world want to blow each other up, have at it. I care about here. Our ability to deal with security issues at home has been reduced to limiting our civil liberties and searching my kid's Biddy Baby knapsack. It will takes years to rebuild an intelligence community for all intents and purposes, did their job. But until they are rebuilt, or until we decide they weren't the problem - the president was - we'll be impotent on an international scale.
Now, these countries can deceive, dance, accumulate whatever they want, and we can't do a thing. No president from here on out can make the case for a VALID preemptive strike unless we get Muammar al-Qadhafi looking into a Fox News camera stating "If you don't attack us, we will attack you", or every person in the world suddenly stops disagreeing with one another - thus making this site obsolete. Anything short of that will cause too much scrutiny, more panels and commissions, more "Live with Our Favorite Talking Head" shows debating what we think we know, and Ted Kennedy belching up his last scotch and water while snorting it's wrong just because it's a Republican deciding our fate.
Bush took an awesome response to 9/11 and conclusive victory in Afghanistan and squandered it on some two bit dictator who couldn't have hurt us unless he FedEx'd a terror program. Heck, he couldn't even fly over 2/3 of his own country.
Everybody should be holding Bush accountable because this is a serious national security nightmare. Our president should have the credibility to knock down anybody that decides to rise against us and attack us. We do not have that any longer and we should not tolerate it as a country. The office of the presidency is not more important than the intelligence services that are being dragged through the mud or our foreign policy that has no credibility any longer.
In the past, the elected leaders who voted for the war had limited options. Either vote no, suffer a terror attack, and suffer the consequences, or vote yes because it appeared to be a safer bet based on what they knew (which by the way, was much less than what Bush knew).
They don't have to vote that way anymore. If they doubt the intelligence from now on (and who wouldn't?), they can vote "no" with no problem. After all, there is a history of us attacking countries that we determined were not a threat to us later, but no history of launching a preemptive strike against a country where we confirmed we neutralized an imminent threat.
The only thing we have to show for this invasion and occupation of Iraq is 10's of thousands dead Iraqis, over 500 dead Americans, and 100's of billions of dollars of my hard earned tax money going into that armpit of the world. After that, nothing else. Period.
Clinton, Albright, and everybody else thought the same thing about Iraq, but they never unilaterally invaded another country based off that info either. Maybe they acted on the hard data they had - which was not much and the reason they didn't do much.
Finally, if I were hammered and a friend tried to take my car keys so I couldn't drive, that's one thing. But if someone who didn't know me and knew nothing about me tried to take my car keys, I'd kick his <insert a word starting with an "a", containing three (3) letters, synonymous with "butt", used to sit on, and banned as profanity here resulting in serious consequences if used> all over the street and have him thrown in jail. Entirely bogus comparison.
QUOTE
If someone's drunk and insistant on driving home and you have to forcefully take the keys to their car before they get behind the wheel, is that wrong? No. So why should taking out Saddam's regime before they 'got behind the wheels of WMD' be any different? Bush acted on solid intel.
Titus, your comparison and logic are deeply flawed. Here's why:
First, Saddam was never a threat to his neighbors. The Iran/Iraq war started because of disputed territories. Saddam told our state department he was going to reclaim the Kuwait oil fields because they were slant drilling into his, and our state department told him to go for it (our policy was not to get involved in border disputes - the cause of 100% the wars in that region. Iraq is not a special case). He did, the world got mad, and we booted him out.
Secondly, Iran, Korea, Russia, and Libya are the key suppliers of WMD and WMD technology (according to the CIA website). Iraq is not even on the radar screen.
Thirdly, I challenge you to name me one Iraqi person ever involved in international terrorism. Just one...that's all I ask. Careful of who you suggest if you're going with the WTC 1 attack and Bush 41 attempt. Just a friendly hint. In any case, there is no way-no how anybody could ever credibly show Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism (for those in Rio Linde, this is the type that would affect us).
So, what we had is another Milosivec, Castro, Kim, or whoever in charge of a country with 3 factions vying for control of the country (Baathists, Shiites, and Kurds). It's no coincidence, right or wrong, that many Arab countries are ruled with an iron hand.
So, to recap - we have a country that has never attacked another country in the name of terrorism, has never been a state sponsor of terrorism, and has never been a supplier of WMD. The WMD he did use back in the Iran/Iraq war was limited in scope, supplied and sanctioned by us, and never used again. Just like us when we killed a few hundred thousand innocents with them.
So, our intelligence would have to confirm all that CHANGED. It didn't. If all the facts were in reverse (meaning, he was a threat to his neighbors and the world, he had a history of selling off WMD, etc), your premise would be entirely accurate. Based on history, we would need to act with the best intel we had.
HOWEVER, THAT HISTORY DID NOT EXIST.
Now, we're revising the ends to justify the means by suggesting that he could have had these things. So now, we're basically destroying countries for getting bigger and stronger.
Iraq was never an imminent threat because he wasn't even a long term threat. It is true that Bush never muttered the words "Iraq is an imminent threat", but with everything him and his administration had stated inferring the same, the Bush apologists have went all Clinton on us - "Well, it depends on the meaning of 'grave' or 'immediate'".
And here's the problem I really have with the Bush apologists. We just cashed our only preemptive strike check on Iraq. I was a believer in the Bush doctrine, but was thinking along the lines of Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Libya. All of these countries have the history your premise suggests. If evidence came through that our failure to act would cause grave consequences, based on their history, I would agree we need to act.
But it did not. Now my kids are in danger (obviously, not just mine) because we just made our part of the world more dangerous. If all those Muslims in that part of the world want to blow each other up, have at it. I care about here. Our ability to deal with security issues at home has been reduced to limiting our civil liberties and searching my kid's Biddy Baby knapsack. It will takes years to rebuild an intelligence community for all intents and purposes, did their job. But until they are rebuilt, or until we decide they weren't the problem - the president was - we'll be impotent on an international scale.
Now, these countries can deceive, dance, accumulate whatever they want, and we can't do a thing. No president from here on out can make the case for a VALID preemptive strike unless we get Muammar al-Qadhafi looking into a Fox News camera stating "If you don't attack us, we will attack you", or every person in the world suddenly stops disagreeing with one another - thus making this site obsolete. Anything short of that will cause too much scrutiny, more panels and commissions, more "Live with Our Favorite Talking Head" shows debating what we think we know, and Ted Kennedy belching up his last scotch and water while snorting it's wrong just because it's a Republican deciding our fate.
Bush took an awesome response to 9/11 and conclusive victory in Afghanistan and squandered it on some two bit dictator who couldn't have hurt us unless he FedEx'd a terror program. Heck, he couldn't even fly over 2/3 of his own country.
Everybody should be holding Bush accountable because this is a serious national security nightmare. Our president should have the credibility to knock down anybody that decides to rise against us and attack us. We do not have that any longer and we should not tolerate it as a country. The office of the presidency is not more important than the intelligence services that are being dragged through the mud or our foreign policy that has no credibility any longer.
In the past, the elected leaders who voted for the war had limited options. Either vote no, suffer a terror attack, and suffer the consequences, or vote yes because it appeared to be a safer bet based on what they knew (which by the way, was much less than what Bush knew).
They don't have to vote that way anymore. If they doubt the intelligence from now on (and who wouldn't?), they can vote "no" with no problem. After all, there is a history of us attacking countries that we determined were not a threat to us later, but no history of launching a preemptive strike against a country where we confirmed we neutralized an imminent threat.
The only thing we have to show for this invasion and occupation of Iraq is 10's of thousands dead Iraqis, over 500 dead Americans, and 100's of billions of dollars of my hard earned tax money going into that armpit of the world. After that, nothing else. Period.
Clinton, Albright, and everybody else thought the same thing about Iraq, but they never unilaterally invaded another country based off that info either. Maybe they acted on the hard data they had - which was not much and the reason they didn't do much.
Finally, if I were hammered and a friend tried to take my car keys so I couldn't drive, that's one thing. But if someone who didn't know me and knew nothing about me tried to take my car keys, I'd kick his <insert a word starting with an "a", containing three (3) letters, synonymous with "butt", used to sit on, and banned as profanity here resulting in serious consequences if used> all over the street and have him thrown in jail. Entirely bogus comparison.
Do the following statements indicate an intelligence failure?[
B]Statement by the Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet
for the
Senate Armed Services Committee
7 March 2001
"The Worldwide Threat in 2001: National Security in a Changing World" [/B]
“Usama bin Ladin and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat. Since 1998, Bin Ladin has declared all US citizens legitimate targets of attack. As shown by the bombing of our Embassies in Africa in 1998 and his Millennium plots last year, he is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
And on Iraq……..
“We continue to face ballistic missile threats from a variety of actors beyond Russia and China--specifically, North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq.”
“ And given the likelihood that Iraq continues its missile development work, we think that it too could develop an ICBM capability sometime in the next decade assuming it received foreign assistance.”
“Our most serious concern with Saddam Hussein must be the likelihood that he will seek a renewed WMD capability both for credibility and because every other strong regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it.” (George Tenet March 7 2001 “Worldwide Threat in 2000” speech before the Senate Arms Services Committee.)
B]Statement by the Director of Central Intelligence
George J. Tenet
for the
Senate Armed Services Committee
7 March 2001
"The Worldwide Threat in 2001: National Security in a Changing World" [/B]
“Usama bin Ladin and his global network of lieutenants and associates remain the most immediate and serious threat. Since 1998, Bin Ladin has declared all US citizens legitimate targets of attack. As shown by the bombing of our Embassies in Africa in 1998 and his Millennium plots last year, he is capable of planning multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
And on Iraq……..
“We continue to face ballistic missile threats from a variety of actors beyond Russia and China--specifically, North Korea, probably Iran, and possibly Iraq.”
“ And given the likelihood that Iraq continues its missile development work, we think that it too could develop an ICBM capability sometime in the next decade assuming it received foreign assistance.”
“Our most serious concern with Saddam Hussein must be the likelihood that he will seek a renewed WMD capability both for credibility and because every other strong regime in the region either has it or is pursuing it.” (George Tenet March 7 2001 “Worldwide Threat in 2000” speech before the Senate Arms Services Committee.)
It appears that the CIA help up their part of the bargain. It looks as if the White House took it, trumped it up, and then served it to one scared American public. Warning us about imminent attacks, partnerships with Al-Qaeda, purchasing of uranium in Niger, and predicting nothing but death and destruction if we didn't act immediately. Never mind the fact that Pakistan had a scientist who actively helped other nations obtain nukes. Never mind that 9 of the 12 hijackers(and not one Iraqi) were the ones who hijacked those planes on 9-11. Noooooooooo sir, no contradiction there.
Yes, both Kay and Tenant admit that Hussein isn't a boy scout. However, using those statements as proof that we should have invaded is intellectually dishonest.
Yes, both Kay and Tenant admit that Hussein isn't a boy scout. However, using those statements as proof that we should have invaded is intellectually dishonest.
[quote]First, Saddam was never a threat to his neighbors.[/quote]
Even when he... actually threatened... his neighbors?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_i...news/279561.stm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...1999021611.html
[quote]Secondly, Iran, Korea, Russia, and Libya are the key suppliers of WMD and WMD technology (according to the CIA website). Iraq is not even on the radar screen.[/quote]
Well that's just it. Iraq does not supply WMD's, they develop and make plans to utilize them. And that has definitely not passed under anyone's radar.
[quote]Thirdly, I challenge you to name me one Iraqi person ever involved in international terrorism. Just one...that's all I ask.[/quote]
Well, that was a good challenge Dayton. The friendly hint you referred to was the lone participant in the first WTC bombing who escaped indictment while fleeing back to his native Iraq. The kicker? He is technically an American citizen. So, even though he grew up and spent most of his life in Iraq, I suppose you wouldn't let that count.
Now there are reports of Iraqi terrorists who have conspired to attack US and other targets,
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12299914.htm)
including Bush's Crawford Ranch,
(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/71009p-65986c.html)
but I don't know if conspiring fits your parameters.
Now I was cautious of using Ansar al-Islam as an example, so I (exhausted, thanks to this challenge) decided to look for credible citings of their ties to Saddam's regime. (Because though that group consists of mostly Kurds from Iraq, which makes them Iraqis, I'm assuming you're implying Iraqi terrorists with a connection with Saddam or Al-Qaeda)
Now this all depends whether you consider the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as credible.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
There is also an article from a news website (its not a major news agency by any means but..) which relates an interview by the New Yorker magazine in which a tie to Al-Qaeda and the Mukabarat, Saddam's Intelligence service, is made. (If anyone can locate the actual New Yorker article or interview for me, please let me know!)
[quote]So, what we had is another Milosivec, Castro, Kim, or whoever in charge of a country with 3 factions vying for control of the country (Baathists, Shiites, and Kurds). It's no coincidence, right or wrong, that many Arab countries are ruled with an iron hand.[/quote]
As for flawed logic... you yourself have mistakenly accused the Kurdish minority of seeking to control the country. They have only wanted to make sure that when the coalition leaves Iraq, that they do not become an oppressed minority under another government. There are also some Kurds that wish for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, but as far as sole power over Iraq, you're mistaken.
Also, many Arab countries are ruled with an 'iron hand', either overtly (as in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq) or covertly, where people of countries like Lebanon are held hostage to the whims of terror groups and puppet regimes, because they have the power and the means to eliminate any activity countering their ideology and to instill fear in those who would think of doing so.
[quote]So, to recap - we have a country that has never attacked another country in the name of terrorism...[/quote]
Call me crazy, but did Iraqi Scud missiles not target and strike Israeli population centers, not military targets during the first Gulf War?
...[quote]has never been a state sponsor of terrorism...[/quote]
Does praising their attacks and rewarding the families of dead Palestinian suicide bombers with $25,000 knowing it will entice more attacks count as 'state sponsored'?
[quote]The WMD he did use back in the Iran/Iraq war was limited in scope, supplied and sanctioned by us, and never used again. Just like us when we killed a few hundred thousand innocents with them.[/quote]
Which completely absolves Saddam and the regime of any wrongdoing, right? Because we were stupid and used them over four decades before, that gives Saddam the right? Perhaps some of that history...was there.
[quote]Now, we're revising the ends to justify the means by suggesting that he could have had these things. So now, we're basically destroying countries for getting bigger and stronger...If evidence came through that our failure to act would cause grave consequences, based on their history, I would agree we need to act.[/quote]
You know back in the 1930's in Europe, there was a country similar in the situation to the one you describe. Humiliated from a past conflict, it's leader sought to rebuild it's military prowess through accelerated development of its weapons and troops. It also, with approval from the world powers at the time, annexed some of it's neighbors under thin socio-economic premises. It then, when the world powers realized that a mistake had been made perhaps, forcefully attempted to annex a neighboring country and plunged the entire world into a conflict.
I'm going to assume you know whom I refer to. Now everyone with a brain will tell you that it would of been infinitely better to of stopped Hitler and the Nazi war machine before it cost millions of lives. I'd hope you felt the same way, about Saddam as well. If you don't think that Saddam couldn't of possessed WMDs in the near future, I don't know what to tell you.
[quote]And here's the problem I really have with the Bush apologists. We just cashed our only preemptive strike check on Iraq. I was a believer in the Bush doctrine, but was thinking along the lines of Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Libya. All of these countries have the history your premise suggests...[/quote]
None of those countries has a track record of inhumanity as the regime of Saddam Hussein had. That's not to say that North Korea and Saudi Arabia can be ignored but Saddam was a very special case. Saudi Arabia has never been accused of gasing its citizens and mass murdering hundreds of thousands and the same goes for North Korea. And believe me, when the time is right, they'll reckon with us too.
Not to mention that if we attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, we'd also be at war with almost every other Arab nation, and by the time North Korea realized that we were massing troops for an invasion in and around Japan, we'd be fighting an uphill war because of the fact that solely on the peninsula, they outnumber our troops by far. Not to mention China would construe that as a serious threat to their soil and perhaps would become involved.
[quote]Now my kids are in danger (obviously, not just mine) because we just made our part of the world more dangerous.[/quote]
I hate to tell you but America and the West have been in the middle of a dangerous world, inhabited with terrorists like the ones of 9-11 since the 1970's. I don't understand why a lot of people think that terrorism, as we have come to be used to, started on or a little while before September 11th, 2001. Our policies have angered many (especially Arab nations and people) and if not for the grace of God or unimaginable luck, the acts of terrorism that has been perpertrated on many others in Europe and the Middle East might of befallen Americans on our soil. There was not much from keeping the flight that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland from suffering the same fate over any town in the US. The Achille Lauro might of been an American cruise ship. This country was in a lot of danger from terrorists before 9-11, and even more after. And Saddam Hussein did not help alleviate that threat. He contributed to it.
[quote]The only thing we have to show for this invasion and occupation of Iraq is 10's of thousands dead Iraqis, over 500 dead Americans, and 100's of billions of dollars of my hard earned tax money going into that armpit of the world. After that, nothing else. Period.[/quote]
And the only thing we have gotten by letting Saddam have his way with the UN and the rest of the world was hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead, scores raped, tortured, and mutilated, instability in a region that's already going to Hell and (one who is by no means a two bit..) dictator who flaunts his refusal to live by the rules the community of nations has laid down. We can play numbers if you want.
[quote]Finally, if I were hammered and a friend tried to take my car keys so I couldn't drive, that's one thing. But if someone who didn't know me and knew nothing about me tried to take my car keys, I'd kick his <insert a word starting with an "a", containing three (3) letters, synonymous with "butt", used to sit on, and banned as profanity here resulting in serious consequences if used> all over the street and have him thrown in jail. Entirely bogus comparison.[/quote]
No, it's not. Now, yes technichally me sluggin you to keep you from driving home drunk, could be construed as assault. But ask any officer if doing so was in the best interest of the safety of the people. See what they tell you. We made a judgement call, as any officer in the scenario I gave, would have. I believe that, although we could of handled the details better, the war was just and that we are better for it.
Even when he... actually threatened... his neighbors?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_i...news/279561.stm
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...1999021611.html
[quote]Secondly, Iran, Korea, Russia, and Libya are the key suppliers of WMD and WMD technology (according to the CIA website). Iraq is not even on the radar screen.[/quote]
Well that's just it. Iraq does not supply WMD's, they develop and make plans to utilize them. And that has definitely not passed under anyone's radar.
[quote]Thirdly, I challenge you to name me one Iraqi person ever involved in international terrorism. Just one...that's all I ask.[/quote]
Well, that was a good challenge Dayton. The friendly hint you referred to was the lone participant in the first WTC bombing who escaped indictment while fleeing back to his native Iraq. The kicker? He is technically an American citizen. So, even though he grew up and spent most of his life in Iraq, I suppose you wouldn't let that count.
Now there are reports of Iraqi terrorists who have conspired to attack US and other targets,
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12299914.htm)
including Bush's Crawford Ranch,
(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/71009p-65986c.html)
but I don't know if conspiring fits your parameters.
Now I was cautious of using Ansar al-Islam as an example, so I (exhausted, thanks to this challenge) decided to look for credible citings of their ties to Saddam's regime. (Because though that group consists of mostly Kurds from Iraq, which makes them Iraqis, I'm assuming you're implying Iraqi terrorists with a connection with Saddam or Al-Qaeda)
Now this all depends whether you consider the Washington Institute for Near East Policy as credible.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571
There is also an article from a news website (its not a major news agency by any means but..) which relates an interview by the New Yorker magazine in which a tie to Al-Qaeda and the Mukabarat, Saddam's Intelligence service, is made. (If anyone can locate the actual New Yorker article or interview for me, please let me know!)
[quote]So, what we had is another Milosivec, Castro, Kim, or whoever in charge of a country with 3 factions vying for control of the country (Baathists, Shiites, and Kurds). It's no coincidence, right or wrong, that many Arab countries are ruled with an iron hand.[/quote]
As for flawed logic... you yourself have mistakenly accused the Kurdish minority of seeking to control the country. They have only wanted to make sure that when the coalition leaves Iraq, that they do not become an oppressed minority under another government. There are also some Kurds that wish for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan, but as far as sole power over Iraq, you're mistaken.
Also, many Arab countries are ruled with an 'iron hand', either overtly (as in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq) or covertly, where people of countries like Lebanon are held hostage to the whims of terror groups and puppet regimes, because they have the power and the means to eliminate any activity countering their ideology and to instill fear in those who would think of doing so.
[quote]So, to recap - we have a country that has never attacked another country in the name of terrorism...[/quote]
Call me crazy, but did Iraqi Scud missiles not target and strike Israeli population centers, not military targets during the first Gulf War?
...[quote]has never been a state sponsor of terrorism...[/quote]
Does praising their attacks and rewarding the families of dead Palestinian suicide bombers with $25,000 knowing it will entice more attacks count as 'state sponsored'?
[quote]The WMD he did use back in the Iran/Iraq war was limited in scope, supplied and sanctioned by us, and never used again. Just like us when we killed a few hundred thousand innocents with them.[/quote]
Which completely absolves Saddam and the regime of any wrongdoing, right? Because we were stupid and used them over four decades before, that gives Saddam the right? Perhaps some of that history...was there.
[quote]Now, we're revising the ends to justify the means by suggesting that he could have had these things. So now, we're basically destroying countries for getting bigger and stronger...If evidence came through that our failure to act would cause grave consequences, based on their history, I would agree we need to act.[/quote]
You know back in the 1930's in Europe, there was a country similar in the situation to the one you describe. Humiliated from a past conflict, it's leader sought to rebuild it's military prowess through accelerated development of its weapons and troops. It also, with approval from the world powers at the time, annexed some of it's neighbors under thin socio-economic premises. It then, when the world powers realized that a mistake had been made perhaps, forcefully attempted to annex a neighboring country and plunged the entire world into a conflict.
I'm going to assume you know whom I refer to. Now everyone with a brain will tell you that it would of been infinitely better to of stopped Hitler and the Nazi war machine before it cost millions of lives. I'd hope you felt the same way, about Saddam as well. If you don't think that Saddam couldn't of possessed WMDs in the near future, I don't know what to tell you.
[quote]And here's the problem I really have with the Bush apologists. We just cashed our only preemptive strike check on Iraq. I was a believer in the Bush doctrine, but was thinking along the lines of Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Libya. All of these countries have the history your premise suggests...[/quote]
None of those countries has a track record of inhumanity as the regime of Saddam Hussein had. That's not to say that North Korea and Saudi Arabia can be ignored but Saddam was a very special case. Saudi Arabia has never been accused of gasing its citizens and mass murdering hundreds of thousands and the same goes for North Korea. And believe me, when the time is right, they'll reckon with us too.
Not to mention that if we attacked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, we'd also be at war with almost every other Arab nation, and by the time North Korea realized that we were massing troops for an invasion in and around Japan, we'd be fighting an uphill war because of the fact that solely on the peninsula, they outnumber our troops by far. Not to mention China would construe that as a serious threat to their soil and perhaps would become involved.
[quote]Now my kids are in danger (obviously, not just mine) because we just made our part of the world more dangerous.[/quote]
I hate to tell you but America and the West have been in the middle of a dangerous world, inhabited with terrorists like the ones of 9-11 since the 1970's. I don't understand why a lot of people think that terrorism, as we have come to be used to, started on or a little while before September 11th, 2001. Our policies have angered many (especially Arab nations and people) and if not for the grace of God or unimaginable luck, the acts of terrorism that has been perpertrated on many others in Europe and the Middle East might of befallen Americans on our soil. There was not much from keeping the flight that was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland from suffering the same fate over any town in the US. The Achille Lauro might of been an American cruise ship. This country was in a lot of danger from terrorists before 9-11, and even more after. And Saddam Hussein did not help alleviate that threat. He contributed to it.
[quote]The only thing we have to show for this invasion and occupation of Iraq is 10's of thousands dead Iraqis, over 500 dead Americans, and 100's of billions of dollars of my hard earned tax money going into that armpit of the world. After that, nothing else. Period.[/quote]
And the only thing we have gotten by letting Saddam have his way with the UN and the rest of the world was hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead, scores raped, tortured, and mutilated, instability in a region that's already going to Hell and (one who is by no means a two bit..) dictator who flaunts his refusal to live by the rules the community of nations has laid down. We can play numbers if you want.
[quote]Finally, if I were hammered and a friend tried to take my car keys so I couldn't drive, that's one thing. But if someone who didn't know me and knew nothing about me tried to take my car keys, I'd kick his <insert a word starting with an "a", containing three (3) letters, synonymous with "butt", used to sit on, and banned as profanity here resulting in serious consequences if used> all over the street and have him thrown in jail. Entirely bogus comparison.[/quote]
No, it's not. Now, yes technichally me sluggin you to keep you from driving home drunk, could be construed as assault. But ask any officer if doing so was in the best interest of the safety of the people. See what they tell you. We made a judgement call, as any officer in the scenario I gave, would have. I believe that, although we could of handled the details better, the war was just and that we are better for it.
And then, there are Bush's not so well hidden actual words on the topic of 'imminent,' cleverly buried in his nobody actually listened to the words 2003 State of the Union Address:
Note to POTUS:
A] You should connect the dots using the US Intelligence Apparatus.
B] But, you should not connect the dots using the US Intelligence Apparatus.
Is that clear?
Then is this?
1] Did Saddam&Co have the desire?
2] Did Saddam&Co have access to sufficient resources necessary to obtain the required resources?
Then, all that was missing was the element of time.
The argument has been made--repeatedly--that our intelligence apparatus is imprecise. I guess publicly dismantling the former US Director of Counter Intelligence In the Middle East in some public poltiical go nowhere pony show in the late 80s'--what was his name? Oh, yeah--Oliver North--well, I guess that political go nowhere pony show finally did accomplish something after all. It wasn't an impeachement. It wasn't even jail time or even community service for Ollie. No, even that slap on the wrist was overturned. Ollie ended up with a new gig on FoxNews is all. NO, the end result of the last political public circus--the one that the same clowns are anxious to repeat--was an evisceration of the Pentagon's career anti-terrorst corps. Sure, everybody just couldn't wait to be the next Olliver North, and be pummeled by politico clowns for cheap political points.
It was a political circus that ultimately crippled US Intelligence capabilities entering the decade of the nineties. After Carter's Desert One, after the muzzling of the CIA, and after the failed crucification of Oliver North, the Pentagon careerists entewred the critical decade of the 90's having been told very clearly by the citizen politicos running the circus, "Axe only; forget the expensive scalpals sitting on the shlelves."
So, even when Clinton finally recoginized the need to take the goloves off and consider using the scalpals in the 90's, the Pentagon careerists told him, 'No, you don't want to do that. We're only good with the public axe."
Smart, safe move on their part. Mr Civilian POTUS, we're not falling for that again. No more scalpals in MurkyVille. You want to publicly throw the US axe, then you stand up on the podium with the flags flying and declare to the world, "Here comes the axe." Meanwhile, the folks will continue to pay the bills for the Seals, for Delta Force, for US/SFOC of all shapes and sizes, mostly to serve as fodder for action movies. FOrget about exactly what Col North was doing when the public circus came to town--developing human resources in the Murkyville of the Middle East. Clealry, not a good career path. No, we'll sit behind expensive high resolution graphics termoinals and stare at satellite imagery while drinking our coffee, the defense contractors will play along with this game, and we'll all do our job, exactly like you civilian clowns have taught us is the way you want us to run things.
And in 2004, some of the same politico idiots will shout and wail and scream, "Why didn't our intelligence services develop human assets in the Middle East?"
Just like their hero, Col Oliver North was doing, when they used his attempted crucification in a failed political attack on Reagan/Bush 41.
Was damaging the US Pentagon/Intelligence atmosphere worth the cheap political shots in the late 80's?
Because, sans human assets in the M.E., what we have today is an impreciuse intelligence apparatus in this area. One that can imprecisely gauge the element of time in a theoretical count the seconds countdown to some launch of WMD.
T-30 seconds; is that when we should intervene? No?
Then, T-6 months? How about T-1 year? T-2 years?
Sure, pick a precise time where no such precision is possible.
OTOH, nobody is arguing that Saddam&Co did not have the desire or access to sufficient resources. Or, maybe they are; that would be novel. No, the only thing that can be argued is the element of time.
As in....did it have to be done NOW?
Why, we should have relied on the preciseness of our self-damaged intelligence apparatus.
If you missed this attack on the US the first time around, don't worry; it's about to be repeated again, by the same politico clowns.
regards,
Frediano
QUOTE
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Note to POTUS:
A] You should connect the dots using the US Intelligence Apparatus.
B] But, you should not connect the dots using the US Intelligence Apparatus.
Is that clear?
Then is this?
1] Did Saddam&Co have the desire?
2] Did Saddam&Co have access to sufficient resources necessary to obtain the required resources?
Then, all that was missing was the element of time.
The argument has been made--repeatedly--that our intelligence apparatus is imprecise. I guess publicly dismantling the former US Director of Counter Intelligence In the Middle East in some public poltiical go nowhere pony show in the late 80s'--what was his name? Oh, yeah--Oliver North--well, I guess that political go nowhere pony show finally did accomplish something after all. It wasn't an impeachement. It wasn't even jail time or even community service for Ollie. No, even that slap on the wrist was overturned. Ollie ended up with a new gig on FoxNews is all. NO, the end result of the last political public circus--the one that the same clowns are anxious to repeat--was an evisceration of the Pentagon's career anti-terrorst corps. Sure, everybody just couldn't wait to be the next Olliver North, and be pummeled by politico clowns for cheap political points.
It was a political circus that ultimately crippled US Intelligence capabilities entering the decade of the nineties. After Carter's Desert One, after the muzzling of the CIA, and after the failed crucification of Oliver North, the Pentagon careerists entewred the critical decade of the 90's having been told very clearly by the citizen politicos running the circus, "Axe only; forget the expensive scalpals sitting on the shlelves."
So, even when Clinton finally recoginized the need to take the goloves off and consider using the scalpals in the 90's, the Pentagon careerists told him, 'No, you don't want to do that. We're only good with the public axe."
Smart, safe move on their part. Mr Civilian POTUS, we're not falling for that again. No more scalpals in MurkyVille. You want to publicly throw the US axe, then you stand up on the podium with the flags flying and declare to the world, "Here comes the axe." Meanwhile, the folks will continue to pay the bills for the Seals, for Delta Force, for US/SFOC of all shapes and sizes, mostly to serve as fodder for action movies. FOrget about exactly what Col North was doing when the public circus came to town--developing human resources in the Murkyville of the Middle East. Clealry, not a good career path. No, we'll sit behind expensive high resolution graphics termoinals and stare at satellite imagery while drinking our coffee, the defense contractors will play along with this game, and we'll all do our job, exactly like you civilian clowns have taught us is the way you want us to run things.
And in 2004, some of the same politico idiots will shout and wail and scream, "Why didn't our intelligence services develop human assets in the Middle East?"
Just like their hero, Col Oliver North was doing, when they used his attempted crucification in a failed political attack on Reagan/Bush 41.
Was damaging the US Pentagon/Intelligence atmosphere worth the cheap political shots in the late 80's?
Because, sans human assets in the M.E., what we have today is an impreciuse intelligence apparatus in this area. One that can imprecisely gauge the element of time in a theoretical count the seconds countdown to some launch of WMD.
T-30 seconds; is that when we should intervene? No?
Then, T-6 months? How about T-1 year? T-2 years?
Sure, pick a precise time where no such precision is possible.
OTOH, nobody is arguing that Saddam&Co did not have the desire or access to sufficient resources. Or, maybe they are; that would be novel. No, the only thing that can be argued is the element of time.
As in....did it have to be done NOW?
Why, we should have relied on the preciseness of our self-damaged intelligence apparatus.
If you missed this attack on the US the first time around, don't worry; it's about to be repeated again, by the same politico clowns.
regards,
Frediano
I've observed the terrorism induced U.S. paranoia since september 11th and the misconception that terrorists are just evil and attack unprovoked seems to be very common.
Any country can be a perceived threat. However, I believe that Saddam Hussein was just a scapegoat for an embarassed president who failed to deliver on his promise to catch bin laden. We all thow this, even the adamant republicans know this. Anybody who is not blinded by empty patriotism can easily realize that it was all a ploy by a desperate President to rally support for a succesful re-election.
Iraq may and may not have weapons of mass destruction. If they did they may or may not have wanted to use it against America. The only thing that is clear, the actions carried out by America now makes them a target to dispondent Saddam Hussein supporters.
Any country can be a perceived threat. However, I believe that Saddam Hussein was just a scapegoat for an embarassed president who failed to deliver on his promise to catch bin laden. We all thow this, even the adamant republicans know this. Anybody who is not blinded by empty patriotism can easily realize that it was all a ploy by a desperate President to rally support for a succesful re-election.
Iraq may and may not have weapons of mass destruction. If they did they may or may not have wanted to use it against America. The only thing that is clear, the actions carried out by America now makes them a target to dispondent Saddam Hussein supporters.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but was there some sort of time limit to catching OBL? Since we are still actively looking for him and Al-Qeada in A-Stan, how has he ultimately failed?
If the Iraq invasion was a ploy to get re-elected, then you must be the only person that I've heard of your political persuasion that doesn't believe this was some sort of long planned conspiracy by PNAC and the NeoCons.
I actually agree with you here.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'll guess that you wouldn't care for conservatives to tell you what Communists think, why are you doing the same?
If the Iraq invasion was a ploy to get re-elected, then you must be the only person that I've heard of your political persuasion that doesn't believe this was some sort of long planned conspiracy by PNAC and the NeoCons.
QUOTE
If they did they may or may not have wanted to use it against America.
I actually agree with you here.
QUOTE
We all thow this, even the adamant republicans know this.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'll guess that you wouldn't care for conservatives to tell you what Communists think, why are you doing the same?
QUOTE(Titus @ Feb 6 2004, 06:38 PM)
Bush wasnt misinformed by anyone.
Yes he was. He has no control over what he gets. What he should have done was to have Tenet confirm what he gave to Bush.
Bush was misinformed. Plain and simple
Intel isn't an exact science, GA. What would Tenet have confirmed? That the agency's analysts were mixed in what to decide and that this was the evidence we they were mixed over. He wasn't misinformed. He made a judgement call on the evidence that he was shown.
"Bush wasnt misinformed by anyone."
PNAC crew, now residing inside the whitehouse. Pressured Clinton to invade Iraq during his term, thier argument is that in order to keep the United States as a super power, we need to invade Iraq to secure the 2nd largest oil resource in the worled for the US. That it was actually a security threat NOT to invade. You can actually read it on their website.
That may have been well and true if we didnt have alt energy. PNAC crew has MAJOR connections to oil industry so thats not an option for them.
The choice was already made.
-------------
Heres a question.
Why did the Bush crew wait until after 9/11 to address the Iraqi and the terrorist threats?
(After the election and before Bush took office)
Sandy Berger and Steven Hadley called on Condi Rice and the rest of the Bush security crew that they needed to break up the Al Quada terrorist cell, systimatically attack, assets frozen, fake charity funding stopped, and their safe haven and terrorist training camps being protected by the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan destroyed.
Berger and the transition team setup a series of 10 meetings. They even had a powerpoint presentation to make it CLEAR that they needed to act.
Sandy Berger (national security advisor for Clinton admin) says to Condi Rice- -- - - - -
"Im coming to this briefing to underscore how important this subject is. I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on counter-terrorism generally than on Al quada specifically than on any other subject."
Berger turned to Richard Clark(Chair of Counter Terrorism Security Group, AKA "CSG") Who had become obsessed with al quada during 8 years of Clinton admin.
And says that we need to go after al quada.(declare war)
Even Clinton became VERY aware of the threat, writing on some memos during his term " this is unsatisfactory" and "We can do better than this" referring to the terrorist threat of al quada.
It was too late for the Clintons. But they were insisting that Bush make it his NUMBER ONE security concern.
They were expecting the Bush admin to jump up and say "My god, lets get on this"
Unfortunately that didn't happen.
Tough on security, pff.
PNAC crew, now residing inside the whitehouse. Pressured Clinton to invade Iraq during his term, thier argument is that in order to keep the United States as a super power, we need to invade Iraq to secure the 2nd largest oil resource in the worled for the US. That it was actually a security threat NOT to invade. You can actually read it on their website.
That may have been well and true if we didnt have alt energy. PNAC crew has MAJOR connections to oil industry so thats not an option for them.
The choice was already made.
-------------
Heres a question.
Why did the Bush crew wait until after 9/11 to address the Iraqi and the terrorist threats?
(After the election and before Bush took office)
Sandy Berger and Steven Hadley called on Condi Rice and the rest of the Bush security crew that they needed to break up the Al Quada terrorist cell, systimatically attack, assets frozen, fake charity funding stopped, and their safe haven and terrorist training camps being protected by the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan destroyed.
Berger and the transition team setup a series of 10 meetings. They even had a powerpoint presentation to make it CLEAR that they needed to act.
Sandy Berger (national security advisor for Clinton admin) says to Condi Rice- -- - - - -
"Im coming to this briefing to underscore how important this subject is. I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on counter-terrorism generally than on Al quada specifically than on any other subject."
Berger turned to Richard Clark(Chair of Counter Terrorism Security Group, AKA "CSG") Who had become obsessed with al quada during 8 years of Clinton admin.
And says that we need to go after al quada.(declare war)
Even Clinton became VERY aware of the threat, writing on some memos during his term " this is unsatisfactory" and "We can do better than this" referring to the terrorist threat of al quada.
It was too late for the Clintons. But they were insisting that Bush make it his NUMBER ONE security concern.
They were expecting the Bush admin to jump up and say "My god, lets get on this"
Unfortunately that didn't happen.
Tough on security, pff.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 24 2004, 11:52 PM)
If the Iraq invasion was a ploy to get re-elected, then you must be the only person that I've heard of your political persuasion that doesn't believe this was some sort of long planned conspiracy by PNAC and the NeoCons.
PNAC contacted the Whitehouse during Clintons admin and demanded that they attack Iraq on the grounds that it was a security threat, if we didnt secure their oil, we would lose our status as world superpower.
What conspiracy do you speak of? PNAC has connections to oil industry and our president and Vice president are both ex-oil CEOs.
The writings on the wall.
Furthermore.
The war has many purposes for those in power.
-retain power - war boosts Dubya's rating. Even the Terror level warnings raise his approval when level is raised
-distracts citizens from real issues, like al quada and loss of jobs.
-oil...the oil was secured first, even before those weapons caches we heard about.
-Israel interests wanted us to invade Iraq, we even use their disgusting tactics and pre emptive war policy(last used by Germany).
-Lets Ashcroft reign in on our freedoms, on grounds of protecting us. Like free speech zones. Idea came from Hitler! He used it during his rallys that we've all seen, lots of waiving and happy germans, we were reporting in the united states that they had Protest zones(like we do now). Back then in the united states, we looked down on this because it was limiting their freedoms. NOW LOOK AT US!
Remember what Jefferson said? "Those who sacrafice liberties for security deserve and get neither."
The war has many purposes for those in power.
-retain power - war boosts Dubya's rating. Even the Terror level warnings raise his approval when level is raised
-distracts citizens from real issues, like al quada and loss of jobs.
-oil...the oil was secured first, even before those weapons caches we heard about.
-Israel interests wanted us to invade Iraq, we even use their disgusting tactics and pre emptive war policy(last used by Germany).
-Lets Ashcroft reign in on our freedoms, on grounds of protecting us. Like free speech zones. Idea came from Hitler! He used it during his rallys that we've all seen, lots of waiving and happy germans, we were reporting in the united states that they had Protest zones(like we do now). Back then in the united states, we looked down on this because it was limiting their freedoms. NOW LOOK AT US!
Remember what Jefferson said? "Those who sacrafice liberties for security deserve and get neither."
Welcome xenn - if you have more information to post and you were the last person to do so, please use the "edit" feature. That will avoid double and triple posting. 
Thanks, I get carried away sometimes. 
Here's another interesting tidbit of information which I would not of known if it wasn't for Democracy Now as the story was released at 1:30 am and is currently not even mentioned in the headlines.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm
Boy the media is doing major damage control these days.
Oh wait I did find it at ONE of the other news sites.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml
Liberally biased my (insert colorful expletive here)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm
Boy the media is doing major damage control these days.
Oh wait I did find it at ONE of the other news sites.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml
Liberally biased my (insert colorful expletive here)
QUOTE(Rickmanx @ Mar 2 2004, 08:07 PM)
Here's another interesting tidbit of information which I would not of known if it wasn't for Democracy Now as the story was released at 1:30 am and is currently not even mentioned in the headlines.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm
Boy the media is doing major damage control these days.
Oh wait I did find it at ONE of the other news sites.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml
Liberally biased my (insert colorful expletive here)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...02-un-wmd_x.htm
Boy the media is doing major damage control these days.
Oh wait I did find it at ONE of the other news sites.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/...ain560449.shtml
Liberally biased my (insert colorful expletive here)
WOW.
I can't believe our supposedly
liberal press didn't jump all over this. It is not possible that the press has a conservative slant. 
I guess the only one that still believes that Iraq has WMDS is Dick Cheney.
It is hard to believe that since Iraq didn't have WMDS sinces 1994 that Bush would get off with just a little slap on the hands. But Saddam was a big bad guy.
QUOTE
WOW.
I can't believe our supposedly liberal press didn't jump all over this. It is not possible that the press has a conservative slant.
I guess the only one that still believes that Iraq has WMDS is Dick Cheney.
It is hard to believe that since Iraq didn't have WMDS sinces 1994 that Bush would get off with just a little slap on the hands. But Saddam was a big bad guy.
I can't believe our supposedly liberal press didn't jump all over this. It is not possible that the press has a conservative slant.
I guess the only one that still believes that Iraq has WMDS is Dick Cheney.
It is hard to believe that since Iraq didn't have WMDS sinces 1994 that Bush would get off with just a little slap on the hands. But Saddam was a big bad guy.
#1 We already know Iraq didn't have WMD, so this report is nothing new.
#2 I think this also damages Clinton since he was accusing Iraq of having stockpiles of WMD well after 1994, thus its not in the liberal media. Everyone already knows that the CIA, and administration got it wrong this time around, they don't want it known that Clinton was wrong as well. So if you wanna smack Bush 43 around about this we gotta smack Billy Boy too!
Clinton and Al Gore have agreed to testify for 9/11 commission. Nobody in the Whitehouse will, that should say something about who is willing to accept liability for foreign policy.
Let's please remember to address the debate questions and not let this turn into another 'who was worse? - Clinton or Bush' threads.
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
Are we suspecting the wrong group, is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error, or could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Ill tell you why that report wont hurt Bush's comission. It says, and we all know, that Iraq was developing missiles that violated the distance the UN set. Now why would anyone want to develop missiles that go outside of Iraq if, oh I don't know, attack its neighbors?
Now, if it turns out Saddam didn't have WMD, then fine, I'll accept that. And at the risk of being called a 'revisionist historian', the fact was like it or not, WMD was not the only issue regarding Iraq. When this thread first started, a lot of folks on the anti-war side pointed and said, 'See! Tenet said Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, so Bush is a dirtbag', and yadda yadda. But if you read the speech, the reason why he said that conclusion wasn't reached was because analysts' conclusions were mixed, hence, no overall conclusion was brought.
Tenet:
"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate...They never said there was an “imminent” threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
In other words, if Saddam doesn't have them now, he will, and it wont take long.
The USA Today article states that the UN report says the Iraqi Nuke program was dormant.
Tenet:
"We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."
So dormant that by 2007 or 2009, three to five years from now, he would of had one. And mind you that report from the USA Today link states that WMD related programs were found.
For what reason would you modify UAV's to carry chemical weapons if you werent planning to utilize them? Why would you plan to make missiles that break the 93 mile limit, if there wasn't a reason to? Why would you dabble in bio weapons, if you didn't plan to implement them? Why would you do all these things, under secrecy, if you were playing by the rules?
The Bush commission, I'd imagine, will come up with questions like these. And the final conclusion was that it was only a matter of time, and that it was better sooner, then later.
Now, if it turns out Saddam didn't have WMD, then fine, I'll accept that. And at the risk of being called a 'revisionist historian', the fact was like it or not, WMD was not the only issue regarding Iraq. When this thread first started, a lot of folks on the anti-war side pointed and said, 'See! Tenet said Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, so Bush is a dirtbag', and yadda yadda. But if you read the speech, the reason why he said that conclusion wasn't reached was because analysts' conclusions were mixed, hence, no overall conclusion was brought.
Tenet:
"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate...They never said there was an “imminent” threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests."
In other words, if Saddam doesn't have them now, he will, and it wont take long.
The USA Today article states that the UN report says the Iraqi Nuke program was dormant.
Tenet:
"We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."
So dormant that by 2007 or 2009, three to five years from now, he would of had one. And mind you that report from the USA Today link states that WMD related programs were found.
For what reason would you modify UAV's to carry chemical weapons if you werent planning to utilize them? Why would you plan to make missiles that break the 93 mile limit, if there wasn't a reason to? Why would you dabble in bio weapons, if you didn't plan to implement them? Why would you do all these things, under secrecy, if you were playing by the rules?
The Bush commission, I'd imagine, will come up with questions like these. And the final conclusion was that it was only a matter of time, and that it was better sooner, then later.
QUOTE
The Bush commission, I'd imagine, will come up with questions like these. And the final conclusion was that it was only a matter of time, and that it was better sooner, then later.
I don't think it was. The fact that no WMD's had been developed since 94 means that the system of inspections and sanctions was working and had been so for the best part of 8 years. Iraq was clearly not a major threat and certainly not one of such gigantic proportions that we had to ignore the UN and rush into a pre-emptive war.
QUOTE(One of Two Debate Questions)
Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
I thought you all may be interested to know NPR out of NYC is broadcasting the hearings of the 9/11 Commission today and tomorrow. You can listen by clicking the "Listen AM 820" button under the link stating "9/11 Commission Hearings" here: WNYC
Currently, Madeline Albright is answering questions posed by the Commission. The full agenda is listed here: 9/11 Commission Hearings Agenda. Tomorrow morning, Mr. Tenant himself will be speaking. I thought this info might be helpful in answering the above debate question.
C-SPAN.org is also broadcasting the hearings.
In view of suppressed information now coming out to the effect that Iraqi operatives were involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing(see www.jaynadavis.com)
I believe it is now clear that Iraq did pose a serious threat and that the invasion
was indeed justified.
I believe it is now clear that Iraq did pose a serious threat and that the invasion
was indeed justified.
QUOTE(eric1 @ Apr 21 2004, 07:40 PM)
In view of suppressed information now coming out to the effect that Iraqi operatives were involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing(see www.jaynadavis.com)
I believe it is now clear that Iraq did pose a serious threat and that the invasion
was indeed justified.
I believe it is now clear that Iraq did pose a serious threat and that the invasion
was indeed justified.
So in your opinion, a book you have not read that has not even been released yet by an essentially unknown author purporting to be able to draw some kind of undefined link between Oklahoma and Iraq based on some source she refuses to name but calls 'credible', utterly convinces you of the correctness of the invasion?
CIA Boss: Iraq Never An Imminent Threat. Could this impact the commission set up by George Bush?
No, because John McCain was one of the first to call for an investigation because of previous testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings by George Tenent that Iraq was never an imminent threat. And, President Bush appointed John McCain to head the commission's investigation into the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
According to recent reports, CIA George Tenent did assure our President George Bush that WMD in Iraq was "a slam dunk deal."
Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
But here is a quote from Tenent's testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearing in 1999:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/990202-tenent.html
Another link to testimony of George Tenent in 2003:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/pres.../pr08112003.htm
Are we suspecting the wrong group? Is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error?, Could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Without justifying the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Prior administrations to the Bush administration shared the same concerns about Saddam and WMD. You can do a Google search on WMD and come up with a zillion sources all pointing to statements made by previous presidents and their cabinet members as well as members of Congress.
What made the sense of urgency more apparent in the Bush administration than previous administrations is September 11, 2001! What we have recently found out is that the Bush administration and previous administrations were listening to various intelligence sources that gathered a majority of their intelligence data from an Iraqi defector nicknamed "Curveball" that was telling intelligence operatives what he believed they wanted to hear rather than the truth about Saddam's WMD program. "Curveball" was a primary source of intelligence information going way back and thus why Clinton and Bush administrations, Congress, the UN, etc. were on the same page about the gathering threat of Saddam and WMD.
I believe John McCain did the right thing in calling for a full investigation in the Iraq war. And, it like the 9.11 Committee Investigation will uncover errors in the intelligence, interpretations of data, etc. ...let the chips fall where they may.
No, because John McCain was one of the first to call for an investigation because of previous testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings by George Tenent that Iraq was never an imminent threat. And, President Bush appointed John McCain to head the commission's investigation into the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
According to recent reports, CIA George Tenent did assure our President George Bush that WMD in Iraq was "a slam dunk deal."
Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/
But here is a quote from Tenent's testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearing in 1999:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/990202-tenent.html
QUOTE
No issue is more emblematic of these new challenges than the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As you know, 1998 saw the nuclear tests in South Asia, continued concerns about Iraq's WMD programs, accelerated missile development in Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India, and broader availability of BW and CW relevant technologies. Particularly worrisome to the Intelligence Community is the security of Russian WMD materials, increased cooperation among rogue states, and more effective efforts by proliferants to conceal illicit activities. US intelligence is increasing its emphasis and resources on many of these issues, but I must tell you that there is a continued and growing risk of surprise.
One of my greatest concerns is the serious prospect that Bin Ladin or another terrorist might use chemical or biological weapons. Bin Ladin's organization is just one of about a dozen terrorist groups that have expressed an interest in or have sought chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents. Bin Ladin, for example, has called the acquisition of these weapons a ''religious duty'' and noted that ''how we use them is up to us.'' Earlier I referred to state sponsorship of terrorism, so let me take this opportunity to say, with respect to Iran, that we have yet to see any significant reduction in Iran's support for terrorism. President Khatami took office in August 1997, but hard-liners, such as Supreme leader Khamenei, continue to view terrorism as a legitimate tool of Iranian policy and they still control the institutions that can implement it.
One of my greatest concerns is the serious prospect that Bin Ladin or another terrorist might use chemical or biological weapons. Bin Ladin's organization is just one of about a dozen terrorist groups that have expressed an interest in or have sought chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents. Bin Ladin, for example, has called the acquisition of these weapons a ''religious duty'' and noted that ''how we use them is up to us.'' Earlier I referred to state sponsorship of terrorism, so let me take this opportunity to say, with respect to Iran, that we have yet to see any significant reduction in Iran's support for terrorism. President Khatami took office in August 1997, but hard-liners, such as Supreme leader Khamenei, continue to view terrorism as a legitimate tool of Iranian policy and they still control the institutions that can implement it.
Another link to testimony of George Tenent in 2003:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/pres.../pr08112003.htm
Are we suspecting the wrong group? Is this an intelligence failure or is this an interpretation error?, Could this feasibly be using only the evidence that fits with the administration's intended purpose?
Without justifying the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Prior administrations to the Bush administration shared the same concerns about Saddam and WMD. You can do a Google search on WMD and come up with a zillion sources all pointing to statements made by previous presidents and their cabinet members as well as members of Congress.
What made the sense of urgency more apparent in the Bush administration than previous administrations is September 11, 2001! What we have recently found out is that the Bush administration and previous administrations were listening to various intelligence sources that gathered a majority of their intelligence data from an Iraqi defector nicknamed "Curveball" that was telling intelligence operatives what he believed they wanted to hear rather than the truth about Saddam's WMD program. "Curveball" was a primary source of intelligence information going way back and thus why Clinton and Bush administrations, Congress, the UN, etc. were on the same page about the gathering threat of Saddam and WMD.
I believe John McCain did the right thing in calling for a full investigation in the Iraq war. And, it like the 9.11 Committee Investigation will uncover errors in the intelligence, interpretations of data, etc. ...let the chips fall where they may.
Vermillion, the site I referred everyone to---www.jaynadavis.com---names
names---the woman was an investigative reporter working in Oklahoma City
at the time of the bombing and has continued her investigation to the present.
Notwithstanding, even had these connections not been established I feel the in-
vasion of Iraq was still justified. With respect to WMDs better to err on the side
of safety---did you notice the "chemical bomb" plot that was thwarted in Jordan
the other day--it is estimated that it would have killed 20,000 people. We keep
hearing "Where are the WMDs?, Where are the WMD's?" Saddam Hussein had
ample time to send them out of the country prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Recall in the first Persian Gulf War, he sent his air force over to his arch enemy
Iran to prevent them from being destroyed. We are also there for other reasons--
go to the site www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and you'll see what they are.
names---the woman was an investigative reporter working in Oklahoma City
at the time of the bombing and has continued her investigation to the present.
Notwithstanding, even had these connections not been established I feel the in-
vasion of Iraq was still justified. With respect to WMDs better to err on the side
of safety---did you notice the "chemical bomb" plot that was thwarted in Jordan
the other day--it is estimated that it would have killed 20,000 people. We keep
hearing "Where are the WMDs?, Where are the WMD's?" Saddam Hussein had
ample time to send them out of the country prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Recall in the first Persian Gulf War, he sent his air force over to his arch enemy
Iran to prevent them from being destroyed. We are also there for other reasons--
go to the site www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and you'll see what they are.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.