CIA undermines Bush over Iraqi chemical weapons

Times Online (UK) ^ | October 10, 2002 | Tim Reid and Michael Evans

[Pay now bill Clinton]

October 10, 2002

CIA undermines Bush over Iraqi chemical weapons
By Tim Reid in Washington and Michael Evans, Defence Editor

SADDAM HUSSEIN is unlikely to launch an attack with chemical and biological weapons unless he is provoked by an imminent military strike, a previously classified assessment by the CIA said yesterday.

The view of US intelligence officials, summarised in a letter written by George Tenet, the CIA Director, suggests that an attack on Baghdad is likely to trigger the one thing that President Bush says he is trying to prevent: the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqi President.

The letter summarised a classified CIA report delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, which stated that the likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the US was low.

It immediately gave ammunition to congressional opponents of military action, where a resolution authorising Mr Bush to use military force against Baghdad is being debated. For now, the letter says, Baghdad “appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical weapons”.

But it adds: “Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.”

Saddam might help Islamic militants to use weapons of mass destruction against the US if he sees it as “his last chance to exact vengeance”.

The letter was delivered to the Democrat-controlled Intelligence Committee, which has been pressing for fuller disclosure of classified material measuring the threat posed by Baghdad. It was sent on Monday, the same day that Mr Bush delivered a televised speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, making the case for the possible use of force. He warned that waiting was “the riskiest of all options” The letter also provides strong support for White House and Pentagon assertions that there are ties between al-Qaeda and Baghdad.

“We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade,” Mr Tenet wrote. Nevertheless, the British Government, which sees most of the same intelligence material as that put before Mr Bush, remains highly sceptical that there is any proof of a link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda. This is because of the Iraqi leader’s dislike of Islamic fundamentalism.

Mr Bush is likely to receive overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate for a resolution authorising force. The House is likely to vote today. The Senate is likely to vote next week.

[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

[aruanan]

CIA undermines Bush over Iraqi chemical weapons

CIA: Clinton In Action

[holyscroller]

Looks like the Clinton Rats are still running the CIA.

[per loin]

Remind me. Wasn't it the CIA who prevented the 911 attacks by their accurate assessment of what al Queda was planning?

[The Great Satan]

Yes, their assessments last year proved as good as the ones they provided to Bush Sr. before the invasion of Kuwait, when they told him Saddam was no threat.

[hosepipe]

Did'nt Clinton appoint George Tenet!..? Hmm...

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

WE got rid of Freeh.. now we need to get rid of Tenent!!

[dfwgator]

Their assessments are as good as the map of Belgrade the pilots used when they bombed the Chinese Embassy.

[Schmedlap]

I want Hussein removed from power as much as anyone else, probably more so. But to discount any suggestion that this may be imprudent on the basis that the suggestion is in disagreement with my position seems illogical.

per loin asked:
"Wasn't it the CIA who prevented the 911 attacks by their accurate assessment of what al Queda was planning?"

And The Great Satan pointed out:
"... their assessments last year proved as good as the ones they provided to Bush Sr. before the invasion of Kuwait, when they told him Saddam was no threat."

Are we to discount the report based on past oversight by the reporting body, rather than upon the merits, or lack thereof, of the actual report?

hosepipe wrote:
"Did'nt Clinton appoint George Tenet!..? Hmm..."

What does that have to do with the substance of the report?

aruanan declares:
"CIA: Clinton In Action"

holyscroller suggests:
"Looks like the Clinton Rats are still running the CIA."

dfwgator wrote:
"Their assessments are as good as the map of Belgrade the pilots used when they bombed the Chinese Embassy."

On what basis are these claims made?

Vets_Husband_and_Wife proclaimed:
"WE got rid of Freeh.. now we need to get rid of Tenent!!"

Why?

I wrote this post under the assumption that each of the quotes above is in response to the post that began this thread, as opposed to some random thought. Why the negative reaction towards the CIA report? I'm curious what your reasoning is.

[The Great Satan]

Are we to discount the report based on past oversight by the reporting body, rather than upon the merits, or lack thereof, of the actual report?

The historical track record would be the best available evidence for judging the validity of the report, yes.

[CWRWinger]

Did'nt Clinton appoint George Tenet!..? Hmm...

Is Klintoon still President? No. Why does Bush hang on to these Klintoon hold-overs? Politics of appeasemnet in action.

Mr. Bush will continue to be bitten from the backside as long as he has Clinton people in power.

[section9]

The CIA has one of the spottiest track records for prediction in the U.S. Government.

They had no idea the Soviet Union was going to implode, and were absolutely in the dark on the September 11th attacks.

They also did provide Strategic Command with that map of Belgrade that showed a hotel owned by Arkan where the Chinese Embassy actually was.

As to their assessment, it presumes that Saddam responds to rational deterrence theory like every other state actor. I disagree, based on his previous use of chemicals on the battlefield, and at Halabja.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[CWRWinger]

Adding one more thing to this, "A house divided cannot stand". Mr. Bush's house is obviously divided. It appears from the polls, that the American people and FreeRepublic want a President who's house is divided.
Besides, he's a Republican, that's all that really matters anyway. </sarcasm off>

Bush-Bots should not complain at all when things like this happen. Has anyone told Mr. Bush it's okay to put a conservative in the CIA?

[hosepipe]

"Mr. Bush will continue to be bitten from the backside as long as he has Clinton people in power."

The appointees like Tenet are a pimple in the ass of gov't.
The real danger are those in power in the Goverment Workers Union promoted to management or hired even, by those Clinton appointess. many of which are gone but scat left by them are still there. its almost impossible to fire a Fed. Gov't worker. So the real damage from Clinton is probably underground in sensitive postions in the Union or other unelected positions. Me thinks that was Clintons main objective, because Clinton did almost NOTHING as president. As negative a player as he is, one wonders what in hell was he up to. Salting the Fed. Workers (who really run Washington anyway) might have been the objective. And all the hoorah over legalities was the diversion. Obviously this senario is way beyond the pubbies scopes.. And obviously, to me, it worked like a charm too.

Who checks on these kind of things?.....
NOBODY!....that I know of.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

My reasonings for getting rid of Tenent are that:

1) I recall Freeh at least having the fortitude to stand up to Reno.

2) He has been cowardly when standing up against the Senate (Torrecelli Amendment comes to mind) to fight for his agents who are risking their lives for us all.

3) It is time for a change, someone who will work with McMullen and not play this childish game of NOT Sharing information. Putting his agents and Americans first!!

4) He ignored serious signs of troubles, and should resign.

Is that enough.. or do you need more?

FRegards, Vets

[hosepipe]

"I wrote this post under the assumption that each of the quotes above is in response to the post that began this thread, as opposed to some random thought. Why the negative reaction towards the CIA report? I'm curious what your reasoning is."

With me.... a general distrust of the perimeter...
Because management of our govenment used to be the Congrees, Judiciary, and the Executive Branch. And the unthinking "MOST" accept that as a fact.
The reality being that our government has 4 branches of power because the Republic has been changed to a Democracy.

With the Congress, Judiciary, Executive Branchs AND the Federal Government Workers party Union(FGWU) holding fairly equal sway over what actually happens there. Since all Fed workers are unelected they remain from admin to admin. If the FGWU is in league with or is actually controlled by a certain criminal enterprise than Sadaam Hussein is merely a bad guy when the enemy is within the gates. Its only not recognizing that makes the Trojan Horse work.

A question "which party" is in bed with most all unions?.
ME-- paranoid, probably but....
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you." Henry Kissinger

[Schmedlap]

"The CIA has one of the spottiest track records for prediction in the U.S. Government."

Compared to what other agencies? The OMB? The CBO?

"They also did provide Strategic Command with that map of Belgrade that showed a hotel owned by Arkan where the Chinese Embassy actually was."

Are we sure that this was a mistake? When I was in Bosnia and was sent to check on named areas of interest, there was more than one occasion when a chinese immigrant fluent in Serbo-Croation and Chinese was there. Why flee China, only to end up in Bosnia?

"As to their assessment, it presumes that Saddam responds to rational deterrence theory like every other state actor."
How is that in disagreement with this: "I disagree, based on his previous use of chemicals on the battlefield, and at Halabja."

What was the "rational deterrence" in those instances?

"They had no idea the Soviet Union was going to implode, and were absolutely in the dark on the September 11th attacks."

We can make a list of all the times that the CIA was wrong. Can we make a list of all the times that the CIA was right?

[section9]

Well, no. The times that the CIA was right can probably be counted on one hand, two at most.

I am very skeptical of CIA grand strategic analysis. Their record towards the end of the Cold War was spotty, at best.

As to deterrence, well, Saddam used his gas without so much as a by-your-leave against the Iranians and, more significantly, to suppress internal Kurdish opposition.

This tells me that his level of self-restraint is rather low.

Deterrence depends, in part, on people exercising restraint in the pursuit of political objectives.

I would rather not risk living in a world in which one of the governing factors is the degree of restraint and self-discipline exercised by a megalomaniac. Especially if we wake up one day and find that he is in possession of a nuclear weapon.

Be Seeing You,

Chris