CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

Yahoo ^ | February, 5, 2004 | KATHERINE PFLEGER Associated Press writer

[JustPiper]

Peaches, I think FBD meant CYA in general, I know that is what I've been saying since Bush became President, why he kept Tenet after him being a Clintonite I'll never understand. I feel that Tenet would look for the right screw and turn it and make our President look bad.

[lelio]

The phrase the president used was GATHERING THREAT!

I'm waiting for someone to say "depends on the definition of 'threat' is" -- aren't you just splitting hairs here?

[George W. Bush]

Neither did the president ever call it an imminent threat

And we were advised by the administration to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape for exactly what reason then?

We may not be at the point of debating the meaning of 'is' but I think a lot of people had the impression of a pretty imminient domestic threat even if the word 'imminent' can't be found by a Lexus/Nexus search.

[Spunky]

State of the Union Address 2002

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.  The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.  This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children.  This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.  By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.  They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.  They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States.  In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

[FBD]

"I didn't think it sounded like CYA at all. You must have listened to another speech."
"It was an excellant speech!"

Ok you guys convinced me. I guess I got sucked in by the media.

I just turned on FOX, and caught snippets, after I read this article.
Having said that, I'm still ticked that the CIA was so far off on their assessment of WMD developement.

A far more convincing reason to go to war with Iraq was the terrorists that clearly are there, rather than WMD's which don't appear to be.

But the CIA was focused on WMD's and now that is the focus, rather than the terrorists. Misdirected focus, imo.

Maybe I've read too many Clancy novels, but I thought the CIA had better intel than this.

Regards.

[MEG33]

Thank you for your post.

[Coop]

Well, NOT ANYMORE!

Sorry, Joe. That just ain't correct.

[Chuzzlewit]

heard parts of this speech on Laura Ingrahm this morning... She said exactly what's going to happen.. and it's started...

only thing that will make the news soundbites is this "no imminent threat" business....

[Wright is right!]

The President said that the time to act was BEFORE Iraq became an imminent threat. The media's collective memory has forgotten that.

Michael

[Coop]

Wrong one. It was his SOTU 2003 speech:

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. (Applause.)

[jempet]

"And we were advised by the administration to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape for exactly what reason then?"

You are mixing two different things together to make one.
Stocking up on plastic sheeting had nothing to do with Iraq itself, but rather terrorists that may try to attack us. It had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and everything to do with terror cells. How can you not see the difference?

[Coop]

I'm waiting for someone to say "depends on the definition of 'threat' is" -- aren't you just splitting hairs here?

Doesn't apply. See above post and this link.

[Missouri]

Bump.

[Coop]

The President said that the time to act was BEFORE Iraq became an imminent threat. The media's collective memory has forgotten that.

Yes, but fortunately we have transcripts. And campaign commercials. :-)

[Spunky]

State of the Union 2003

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

[Spunky]

"Wrong one. It was his SOTU 2003 speech:"

I know and just posted it at #35. I was trying to find all his words in regards to Iraq.

[Peach]

It's easy to get sucked into the media misdirection and the easy answers in novels. (I love spy novels too although they lost some of their allure after the end of the Cold War, much the same way the CIA lost funding!)

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

Jonah Goldberg had a great column about this, a while ago.

[Beenliedto]

There was a clearly orchestrated propaganda campaign over a course of many months to frighten the pure bejesus out of the American people, thereby setting the stage for war with Iraq.

It ain't just what the President says, folks, it's the way he says it, and tone of his voice, the inflections, the statements of his staff and the media which his staff so greatly influences.

His intent was to sell this war to the American people based on the inference that Saddam was a clear and present danger, and he did so.

Now the WMDs don't show up, and the whole thing is being parsed worse than what is.. is.

Give me a break.