CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

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

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq (news - web sites) posed an imminent threat.

Tenet said analysts had varying opinions on the state of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House. That report summarized intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

Analysts "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, " he said in a speech at Georgetown University.

"No one told us what to say or how to say it," Tenet said.

He said that "in the intelligence business, you are never completely wrong or completely right ... When the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong."

He also noted that the search for banned weapons is continuing and "despite some public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished. " That was a direct rebuttal to claims made by David Kay, Tenet's former top adviser in the weapons search.

Since Kay resigned two weeks ago, his statements that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s purported weapons didn't exist at the time of the U.S. invasion have sparked an intense debate over the prewar intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the war.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is turning into a major political issue ahead of the presidential election, calling into question the justification for the war as U.S. casualties mount. Republicans in Congress have increasingly been blaming poor intelligence and Tenet, who was originally appointed by President Clinton (news - web sites).

Democrats have said intelligence agencies deserved only part of the blame and have accused the White House of showcasing intelligence that bolstered the case for war, while ignoring dissenting opinions.

Bush was expected to announce another commission this week to review the intelligence community. At least five other inquiries into prewar intelligence are already under way.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., scheduled a meeting Thursday to study a 200-plus-page report compiled by committee staff on the prewar intelligence.

[George W. Bush]

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?

I'm not mixing any things together.

You are trying to separate the Iraq war from the War On Terror.

The War On Terror was the toughening of our domestic defenses against terrorism, attacking al-Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and then the invasion of Iraq and deposing of the Hussein regime.

Or are you saying that the toppling of Iraq was not part of the War On Terror? If it wasn't, then what was it exactly?

Which is it?

[demlosers]

ABC and Albawaba Middle East News use the same title on their website. Here's a more 'fair and balanced' title from USA Today of the same article:

CIA director defends intel officials' prewar efforts

[stig]

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.

The rocket launchers don't appear to be there either,at least we can't seem to find them. The terrorists seem to have no problem shooting rockets, I wonder how they do it? They also seem to have plenty of explosive materials that we just can't seem to find. It obviously isn't that easy to find small caches of weapons in a country the size of Iraq. We can't even find the source of Anthrax in our own country.

The real problem I have is the democrats will play up this alleged intellegence failure as President Bush lied. They are trying to affect public opinion against the war in Iraq. This is treasonous to me. I'm not sure why the rest of the American population doen't see this

[Stultis]

The whole problem here is that we (The United States) never should have implicitly accepted the burden of proof wrt to WMD or anything else. The issue should have been put as a simple binary question: Has Saddam complied with U.N. Resolution 1441? Yes = continue inspections, No = War.

[Stingray51]

Excellent point. Per the Administration all along, the invasion of Iraq is part of the Global War on Terror.

True, the president never said the WMD threat from Iraq was "imminent" and in fact he said that we should not wait until it became imminent. But it is also true that a danger that is "gathering" has to be more "imminent" than if it was not gathering. And a threat that is grave and growing has to be nearer in time to materializing than one which is neither. Perhaps, this does not rise to "imminence" but the American people were clearly given the impression that action was needed right away.

[TheDon]

Does this help clear the cobwebs?

---

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary September 12, 2002

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly New York, New York

10:39 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 11:04 A.M. EDT

[TheDon]

You are correct, of course. Some people are just a bit sloppy with their facts.

[BagCamAddict]

aren't you just splitting hairs here?

Do you mean splitting hairs about the difference between "imminent" and "gathering"?

If that's what you mean, no, that is absolutely not splitting hairs. Two totally different definitions:

Imminent: About to occur; impending: in imminent danger; Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.

Gathering: accumulating and becoming more intense; "the gathering darkness"; To accumulate (something) gradually; amass; To grow or increase by degrees.

[TheDon]

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.

A Demorat couldn't have said it better. It's not what the President says, it's how he says it that counts.

[Natural Law]

He was not imminent threat, he was a present and real threat. How could he not be when he fired daily on US and UK aircraft enforcing the No-Fly zones?

[AFPhys]

The quote you are seeking is from the 2003 State of the Union speech.

You can locate it at http://www.whitehouse.gov

[FBD]

"On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed that Saddam had ongoing programs and perhaps stockpiles and have found no evidence of such ongoing programs. He asserted, however, that the weapons searching teams needed more time.

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 ongoing, Tenet said.

Those sources "solidified and reinforced ... my own view of the danger posed by Saddam's regime," Tenet said, taking direct responsibility for what was passed on to Bush.

"On one key point that is befuddling weapons inspectors, Tenet said he did not know at this point whether it was possible Saddam's own officials had lied to the Iraqi leader about what his regime had in the way of weapons."

When I read 'Saddam's Bombmaker, by Dr. Hamza, one thing stands out now; how Hamza and his co-workers would tell Saddam's henchmen that their progress on the nuclear program was far ahead of what it really was.

Extrapolating this out to other programs, it seems logical to conclude that all Iraqi scientists were foing the same thing, in order to keep Saddam happy, and perhaps keep their jobs and perks that Saddam doled out (he was known to give new Mercedes to his scientists as incentive) or maybe just to protect their life and family.

Whatever the reason, it just seems to me that our intel guys should have picked up on this.

Let's face it; we were all given the impression that there were MASSIVE quantities of chemical / biological agents in quantities that would not have been at all easy to conceal, or haul to another country.

( 85,000 liters of anthrax, thousands of gallons of mustard gas, Sarin, ricin, etc. I believe to date all that has been found is a small vial of botulinium, and some yellow cake uranium, *possibly* from Iraq.

Illegal, and lethal, yes, but not in the massive quantities that we were all led to believe.

This hyped up number was not needed to prove that Iraq was a threat, especially in the area of supporting terrorists. We know for a fact he was supporting the PLO.

Now, I believe (sadly) that this exageration has hurt our government's credibilty, as it's become the focus, rather than the fact that Saddam was continuing in WMD developement, and that he was covertly supporting terrorism.

[Stultis]

I didn't think it sounded like CYA at all.

I didn't hear the speech, but I'm glad to hear your comment.

It is essential that the men and women in our intelligence agencies be (intelligent) risk takers and envelope pushers. Within the agency, Tenet has provided the leadership necessary to foster this new ethos, and at higher levels so has George W. Bush. They must not go wobbly now. This is extremely important.

BTW, all the "fire Tenet" crew need to think back a bit. Actually I can't even remember how many failed CIA directors we went through before Tenet that only lasted a year or two, but there was a whole disastrous string of them. Sure, we might get lucky and find a replacement right off as dedicated, as energetic and as respected across all departments within the agency as Tenet, but we might not. Y'all wanna take that risk, now?

[AFPhys]

You are exactly right. In fact, the president himself, in the State of the Union (2003), inferred he did NOT consider the threat "imminent":

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 world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies.

I wish people would learn to look for themselves, don't you?

[muleskinner]

Just heard Rush play part of Tenet's statement.

"In the mid -90's when I became head of the CIA, we had the smallest (or pathetically small) class of graduating officers. It wiil take another 5 years to get to where we want to be"

Thanks you Frank Church, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, et al.

[MEG33]

I did not have the bejesus scared out of me by Iraq.I did think they were supporting terrorism and know they had harbored terrorists and had scientists and programs for chemical and biological weapons.

I did know what all thought they had ,as the UN said there was no documentation of destruction of large amount of chemical weapons from the assessments of what they had.

He had not lived up to his cease fire agreements,we had planes flying and being shot at to protect regions of Iraq from mass killings.

There are lies and there are statements based on wrong information or information that is not yet verified.

The UN had countries pushing to remove sanctions,Saddam had the programs that could have been restarted.He was still seeking WMD and had info the scientists could sell to terror cells.You were not lied to.The President was misinformed ...as far as we now can prove. WMD have not been found yet.

[MJY1288]

And Bill Clinton met with George Tenet a grand total of twice while he was President

[AFPhys]

Are you aware of how little space is required to hide 85,000 liters? I easily have more junk than that in my basement alone, and I have a small house! It would fit in a single one-car garage! Iraq is the size of California, and we know much was buried there - even by weapons scientists in their back yards!

[FBD]

"The rocket launchers don't appear to be there either,at least we can't seem to find them. The terrorists seem to have no problem shooting rockets, I wonder how they do it? They also seem to have plenty of explosive materials that we just can't seem to find. It obviously isn't that easy to find small caches of weapons in a country the size of Iraq."

Nah, they find small caches of rocket launchers, RPG's, ammo, etc. every day, but they weren't on the banned list. I believe our guys have found some rockets that had a range ( 200km plus?)beyond what was allowed, with conventional warheads on them. See FR post below:

BTW, I agree with you about the Dem political spin. This intel failure went back to the Klintoon era. Which is probably why we had an intel failure in the first place...

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058762/posts

Weapons Cache Found

---

"TIKRIT, Iraq – Scouts from the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment cordoned off an area southwest of Samarra, on a road to Lake Thar Thar, searching for a reported weapons cache in the afternoon of Jan. 13. The scouts raided a building, capturing one person.

"Additionally, they located and confiscated two complete 60-millimeter mortar systems, 11 mortar tripods, 11 mortar base plates, seven 82-millimeter mortar tubes, 170 mortar rounds, 11 rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launchers, six RPG sights, four mortar sights, one pair of binoculars, one night sight, six orange smoke grenades, 11 hand- grenades, 17 sticks of dynamite, six sticks of C4, eight blasting caps, 110 boxes of 7.62-millimeter ammunition, 10 AK-47 assault rifle magazines, eight hand-grenade charges, 68 M6 mortar fuses, two 120-millimeter mortar charges, one box of charges, one bag of artillery propellant, one bag of 82-millimeter mortar charges, eight RPG charges, one 155-millimeter artillery round, three 57-millimeter rockets, three 82-millimeter rockets, one AK-47 assault rifle, one telephone, several pictures of Saddam Hussein, and anti-Coalition pamphlets...."

[Stultis]

but the American people were clearly given the impression that action was needed right away

And so it was. Sanctions were collapsing, and with them the whole containment strategy. One must do things when it is politically possible to do so, and in this respect we truly were faced with our final opportunity to deal with Saddam while he was still weak.

Some officials I believe (Wolfowitz?) did outline this rationale, and so did Perle and others on the outside, but since it pointed up the limitations and weaknesses of our own position, you couldn't have expected high public officials to emphasize it.

In any case this context was obvious to me, and I think should have been to any intelligent and informed American.