[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

But if he was attacked, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with biological or chemical weapons was "pretty high."

But Iraq denies having any WMDs.

Jim McDermott says so too.

[mjp]

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,"

Ok, he will let terrorists do it for him.

[dark_lord]

Its only logical. He knows that the day American tanks roll across the border, he is a dead man. Either
(a) we kill him, or
(b) his own generals kill him, or
(c) his own bodyguards kill him, or
(d) his own relatives kill 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.

[okie01]

"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.

"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?

[VaBthang4]

"The letter, dated Oct. 7, was signed by Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin on behalf of CIA Director George Tenet"

Fire'em both and give it to Guliani.

[Cvengr]

I ask myself, Why do I feel as though the real combatants are already integrated into our society in every institution and the militant Muslims are only one of perhaps 50 some odd other groups equally if not more dangerous?

Then I read this and wonder if it (the above) were not the case, then why would this be leaked now.

[NJJ]

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.

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?

[TheDon]

9-10-2001

The CIA said the probability of Al-Queda Leader Bin Laden initiating an attack without provocation on the United States in the foreseeable future was "very low," according to a letter made public on Tuesday.

[LiteKeeper]

Was this letter "declassified" or "leaked" by the DemoRats?

[AmericaUnited]

IRAQ HAS ALREADY ATTACKED THE US.

OKLAHOMA FEDERAL BUILDING

WTC 93

911

[river rat]

Flash Flash
Memo to Palestinians
There is no such thing as anthrax that kills only Jews
There is no such thing as radioactivity that kills only Jews
High Explosives kills EVERYONE in the blast radius

Will Saddam warn YOU before he attacks Israel?

Freeking Dumb Asses

Semper Fi

[Lion's Cub]

This is a terrific example of writing a "news" story with an agenda and taking comments out of context! By the time a reader gets to the middle of the article, where they bother to put the context back in, the reader has already decided that the CIA gave advice that was the exact OPPOSITE of that actually given.

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.