A lot of points about the Iraq war have been addressed. This one hasn’t really, IMO, so I’m putting up a thread solely on this topic, and the way I see it.
Either the CIA is right or they’re wrong.
If they’re right, a lot of our justification for attacking Iraq goes right out the window. We would actually be making the United States and our allies SAFER by finding a way OTHER than war to get Saddam out.
If they’re wrong, we’re still in big trouble, because we’re most likely going to be using all the intelligence on Iraq we can to fight this war. If the CIA is wrong on a point of this magnitude, how can we trust the rest of the information, or the interpretation of such, they give us? And again, if they’re wrong about something this big, what does this say about the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to fight terrorism?
First, logic doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to Saddam and terrorists. They do what they do because of beliefs not logic. For example, was it logical for Al Qaeda to launch an attack on the US with the 9-11 attacks? No. Al Qaeda pissed off a country that they really could not defeat. Al Qaeda lost there home base and are on the run. It wasn’t the brightest idea. (Note, I do not mean to, in anyway, diminish the loss of life in the 9-11 attacks)
Second, assuming that Saddam will not aid terrorists unless the U.S. attacks Iraq is very, well how to put this, stupid. I’d like a link to the article you kind of cite in your OP. (You meantion the CIA and their findings but you do not provide a cite. Without a cite your statement doesn’t mean much)
Third, for very obvious reasons, the CIA and other intellegence agency do not make what they know public. They deal with secrets. And HEY! guess what? If they tell everyone what they know then what they know are no longer secrets. There are reasons some agencies keep a lid on what they know.
Forth, what evidence do you have that Saddam is not presently helping terrorists? You meantion a CIA report that you do not link to as a source. I hate to say this but, cite please?
Fifth, how exactly would you take out Saddam without a war? I am sure that the world would be very thankfull to you if you could provide a better option than war. (Somehow I don’t think you can answer this)
To sum it up,
Saddam has to go and the only way is war. Backing down will just make Saddam jrs. bolder in their attacks. Killing Saddam will show all those Saddam jrs. that pissing off the US is a bad idea. Thugs only understand the power to kill.
What Bush is doing viz a viz Iraq and North Korea is very telling.
It sends the message to every two bit dictator: Get nuclear weapons as soon as possible. Be like North Korea and we won’t do anything about you.
Don’t listen to our future requests for disarmament. They are lies. We just want you to disarm so we can make it easier to invade you. We’ll just say “Too little, too late” no matter what you do.
Get nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to stay in power.
You are absolutely right, of course. I’d just assumed that this had come up so often, everyone would’ve known about this by now.
This link was cited in another thread; this is the letter (not report, that was my error) in question. This link also discusses the letter, as does this one. If you’d like to search for cites yourself, look up Bob Graham; he’s the person the CIA contacted, as you can see in the first link (which, as you can see, refers to a closed hearing in which the same assertions were made).
My guess is that the CIA is indeed right. There is no evidence of Saddam ever having handed WMD to terrorists in the past despite him having such weapons for more than 20 years. It seems reasonable to suppose that this is because he is scared of detection and retaliation. Now that the US has decided to attack he has nothing to lose and every reason to throw his worst at the US. One way of doing this is to pass some of his weapons to terrorists. As I argue in another thread I suspect his agents are using this two day ultimatum period to move out of the country with bio/chem weapons to hand to terrorists.
So the bottom line is that this invasion is likely to increas the chances of the very thing it was supposed to prevent: terrorists acquiring WMD. Talk about counter-productive.
I’ve heard this a lot. If you look though, there are quite a few sources of declassified and unclassified info.
Google a bit for yourself for primary source documents.
Blalron: I agree with what you posted 100%. That is EXACTLY the message that we are sending. I guarantee that Iran is feverishly trying to get nukes before we decide that it’s their turn.
Well, the CIA doesn’t exactly say that Saddam won’t help terrorists without a war, does it?
I mean, your own link (the first one) says that the CIA believes that Iraq and Al-Quida have a relationship that goes back a decade and includes giving Al-Quida members “safe haven” and training “…in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs…”
Some might call that “helping terrorists.”
The CIA also says (still your first link) that it’s unlikely that Iraq will give terrorists “weapons of mass destruction” but qualifies that opinion with the phrase “in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now.” That’s a lot of qualification.
And the CIA (still your link) goes out of it’s way to call attention to this qualifying phrase by pointing out that its inclusion was "intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds.
This link simply is not saying that Saddam won’t help terrorists without war. What it says is that Saddam is already helping terrorists and that the probability of his giving them WMD is increasing all the time.
Read it !! I don’t see how anyone can interpret it any other way.
The likelihood of Iraq using WMD for blackmail or deterrence is a far cry from saying that there is a threat that he would use them against the US or that Iraq’s posession thereof is an immediate threat to the US.
It also implies that if his arsenal was depleted or halted in its growth that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise would also be halted.
I don’t see how using the phrases “in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now” are all that different from the phrase “in our best estimate”. He is just acknowledging that given the immanence of a US led invasion and the general chaotic nature of the world at large that further intelligence could change the CIA assessment. Covering his ass is the technical legal term.
Furthermore, the point of using the declassified info contained in the letter was to show that the CIA assessment was at odds with the presidential admin’s public assessment- “We cannot wait any longer- Iraq is a threat to US NOW.”