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.
You are precisely correct. Thanks for pointing this out.