Indeed. If you remember, Saddam put us all on notice of that, right after he demolished the World Trade Center:
Posted on 10/08/2002 7:21:19 PM PDT by blam
CIA Says Iraq Drawing a Line on Attacking U.S.
Tue Oct 8, 9:31 PM ET
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA said the probability of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein initiating an attack without provocation on the United States in the foreseeable future was "very low," according to a letter made public on Tuesday.
But if he was attacked, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with biological or chemical weapons was "pretty high."
The letter, dated Oct. 7, was signed by Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin on behalf of CIA Director George Tenet and sent to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham in response to the Florida Democrat requesting the CIA declassify parts of its secret assessment on Iraq.
The Senate is debating how much authority to give President Bush in a war powers resolution, and some Democrats complained that the CIA was not providing intelligence that contradicted the Bush administration's views on Iraq.
Bush, in a televised speech on Monday night, sought to rally public support around his position that Iraq poses a danger to the United States because of its biological and chemical weapons and ties to terrorists.
The CIA assessment in the letter to Graham said Iraq appeared to have stopped short of terrorist attacks against the United States.
'DRAWING A LINE'
"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States," the CIA said.
"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions," the letter said.
Tenet, in a statement, said there was "no inconsistency" between the CIA's view of Saddam's growing threat and the view expressed in the president's speech.
"Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack at this moment are low -- in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD -- there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build," Tenet said.
The letter declassified dialogue from a closed Oct. 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, in which a senior intelligence witness was asked what Saddam would do if he did not feel threatened.
"My judgement would be that the probability of him initiating an attack -- let me put a time frame on it -- in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low," the witness said.
In response to a U.S. attack, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with chemical or biological weapons was "pretty high," the intelligence witness said.
INFORMATION FROM DETAINEES
The CIA said its understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was "evolving" and based on sources of varying reliability. The United States blames al Qaeda for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but officials say they have not found any direct link between the attacks and Iraq.
"Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank," the CIA letter said. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade."
"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression," the CIA said.
Bush, in his speech, said some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq, including a senior leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year.
U.S. officials told Reuters that was a reference to Abu Musab Zarqawi who lost a leg in Afghanistan, but that he was no longer in Iraq.
"Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military actions," the letter said.
The CIA last week publicly released an unclassified report on Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons capabilities.
But Iraq denies having any WMDs.
Jim McDermott says so too.
Ok, he will let terrorists do it for him.
Everybody over there fears and hates him. So, what does he have to lose? Load the chemical and biological warheads and lob them at the Israelis, the Kuwaitis, and our troops of course. So what if we retaliate? How? We nuke him? He's dead whether it is a bullet, a knife, or a nuke.
He is a rat in a trap of his own making. My prediction is unless his own people knock him off, we will invade, he will launch every WMD he has....and we win. Of course, the democrats will blame Bush.
"For now". But what about last year...?
Tenet has also denied the Prague meeting. And, reportedly, the CIA hasn't found the time nor the resources to interrogate the al-Qaeda prisoners being held in Kurdistan.
The Company isn't being very helpful, are they?
Fire'em both and give it to Guliani.
Indeed. If you remember, Saddam put us all on notice of that, right after he demolished the World Trade Center:
Then I read this and wonder if it (the above) were not the case, then why would this be leaked now.
Could it be that they have just as much to hide as the FBI?
This is why if we are forced to attack him sometime in the future we will have to do it in the winter months so that we can protect our troops on the ground with protective gear, too hot to wear in the summer.
Can someone suggest what month we should attack after he has nuclear capability?
This is the most disingenuous "lead sentence" I've seen recently...not only is everyone's "credibility" at "forseeing" the future left in doubt by the events of the last year, but the article goes on to quote Tenet, et. al. as saying exactly that!
"If this" and "if that"...that's no kind of definitive statement, IMHO...and again, with that many "ifs", referring to the "forseeable future" is nearly an oxymoron, methinks...
Better safe than sorry, I say, and let the spinners spin as they wish even though I foresee they won't even have the grace to say "thanks" to the folks who will ignore their advice and therefore will end up preserving their lives and liberty for them...
OKLAHOMA FEDERAL BUILDING
WTC 93
911
Will Saddam warn YOU before he attacks Israel?
Freeking Dumb Asses
Tenet, in a statement, said there was "no inconsistency" between the CIA's view of Saddam's growing threat and the view expressed in the president's speech."Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack at this moment are low -- in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD -- there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build," Tenet said.
The letter declassified dialogue from a closed Oct. 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, in which a senior intelligence witness was asked what Saddam would do if he did not feel threatened.
"My judgement would be that the probability of him initiating an attack -- let me put a time frame on it -- in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low," the witness said.
In response to a U.S. attack, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with chemical or biological weapons was "pretty high," the intelligence witness said.
(snip)
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression," the CIA said
(snip)
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al Qaeda, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military actions," the letter said
No where do I see any suggestion that Tenet is advocating that we shouldn't attack Iraq pre-emptively. Yet that is exactly what most on this forum are reading into his analysis--because that is what the press, and especially Reuters, is setting them up to do.
It seems to me that these are precisely some of the reasons the President gave in his speech the other night for wanting to disarm Iraq.
In March 2002, CIA Director George Tenet told a Senate committee that it would be a mistake to dismiss Hussein as a possible sponsor of the (anthrax) attacks. Tenet said that although Hussein and Osama bin Laden had clear religious and ideological differences, they shared "mutual antipathy" to the United States and Saudi Arabia. "Tactical cooperation between them is possible," he said. - "White House Backs Report of Link Between Iraq, September 11 Suspect" , Kansas City Star
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.