CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

Yahoo ^ | February, 5, 2004 | KATHERINE PFLEGER Associated Press writer

[Kaslin]

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq (news - web sites) posed an imminent threat.

Tenet said analysts had varying opinions on the state of Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House. That report summarized intelligence on Iraq's weapons programs.

Analysts "painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests, " he said in a speech at Georgetown University.

"No one told us what to say or how to say it," Tenet said.

He said that "in the intelligence business, you are never completely wrong or completely right ... When the facts of Iraq are all in, we will neither be completely right nor completely wrong."

He also noted that the search for banned weapons is continuing and "despite some public statements, we are nowhere near 85 percent finished. " That was a direct rebuttal to claims made by David Kay, Tenet's former top adviser in the weapons search.

Since Kay resigned two weeks ago, his statements that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s purported weapons didn't exist at the time of the U.S. invasion have sparked an intense debate over the prewar intelligence the Bush administration used to justify the war.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is turning into a major political issue ahead of the presidential election, calling into question the justification for the war as U.S. casualties mount. Republicans in Congress have increasingly been blaming poor intelligence and Tenet, who was originally appointed by President Clinton (news - web sites).

Democrats have said intelligence agencies deserved only part of the blame and have accused the White House of showcasing intelligence that bolstered the case for war, while ignoring dissenting opinions.

Bush was expected to announce another commission this week to review the intelligence community. At least five other inquiries into prewar intelligence are already under way.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., scheduled a meeting Thursday to study a 200-plus-page report compiled by committee staff on the prewar intelligence.

[Happy2BMe]

Addendum to Tenet memo:

Bush: Arms 'We Thought' Were in Iraq Are Not Found

[demlosers]

A related thread: We Never Said Iraq Was Imminent Threat -CIA Chief

[Kaslin]

Well actually the press called it an imminant threat, but claimed the president did.

[Moby Grape]

The AP has INTENTIONALLY lied...claiming that Bush said "imminent threat" was the main arguement used to justify war...as we all know, he did not say this...He said we cannot wait until Iraq possed an imminenet threat.

Let the AP know what you think of their INTENTIONAL lie:

212-621-1720
Email: info@ap.org

[FBD]

"Are you aware of how little space is required to hide 85,000 liters? I easily have more junk than that in my basement alone, and I have a small house!"

You do?!? I recommend you get these folks over to your place, ASAP! ;^D

[George W. Bush]

True, the president never said the WMD threat from Iraq was "imminent" and in fact he said that we should not wait until it became imminent. But it is also true that a danger that is "gathering" has to be more "imminent" than if it was not gathering. And a threat that is grave and growing has to be nearer in time to materializing than one which is neither. Perhaps, this does not rise to "imminence" but the American people were clearly given the impression that action was needed right away.

Absolutely. Unless we had a credible WMD/terrorism threat, in addition to the U.N. resolutions, we had a slim pretext for war. Afghanistan was clearly harboring terrorists so that was not in question with anyone.

But if we maintain that Saddam was a 'gathering threat' and that justifies our invasion, even against world opinion, then we have accorded ourselves the right to invade anyone anywhere any time they make us a little nervous.

I don't believe that Bush acted in bad faith. I think that he did believe what he told us.

I'm not suggesting that we need anyone's permission to defend ourselves. But we have to have a rational and consistent explanation for what we do militarily and in foreign policy. And when we say we'll produce proof to justify an invasion, we'd better not produce excuses instead. Especially while garrisoning one of the biggest oil reserves in the world which just happen to be located in that 'gathering threat' country.

You know, we would never believe any country, not even Britain or Israel, if they staged an invasion into an oil-rich country and then had no proof of aggression or WMD.

We have to ask exactly why the rest of the world should trust us when the situation is reversed.

[philosofy123]

George Tenet is a fantastic administrator, and a patriot. He should not be fired. The WH should look at the Office of Special Plans, and many other think tank hawks or rushed us into this war, and caused lots of egos to be bruised around the world capitals.

[FBD]

NOBODY is going to be stoopid enough to store hazardous bio/chem agents in their home, especially the Iraqi scientists. Unless they had a death wish, of dying a horrible, slow, and painful death...

The stuff maybe buried in the desert, I'll grant you that. But it isn't in someone's house.

[MEG33]

David Kay has said that despite the fact no WMD have been found,they had the knowledge to sell to terrorist and small amounts are not difficult to make.

Iraq's scientists could easily have cashed in by selling their knowledge as the nuclear scientist did in Pakistan.He said the war was necessary and that Iraq in the chaotic condition it was in was more dangerous than we had thought.

[yonif]

This was not an imminent threat, of course. But it doesn't mean it couldn't have been one. Just look at Afghanistan. Was it an imminent threat on Sept. 10? Nope.

The whole militant Islamic culture, predominantly in the Arab world, must be condemned to defeat. In order to do that, however, western countries must declare war on it, which they have not. If they do not do it now, more terrorism will reach us, due to the continuing spread of militant Islamic ideology throughout the world, specifically parts of Africa and eastern Europe.

[MEG33]

David Kay said Iraq was more dangerous than we thought...even without the stockpiles.

[MEG33]

FYI..There are many good links here in the first 50.

[yonif]

I agree that Saddam Hussein was part of the war on terrorism, and hoped Bush would have made that connection before the war, and not more now.

Saddam headed a terrorist regime. He was a terrorist, and so was his country, even before 9/11.

After 9/11 the US declared a war on terrorism. Iraq was probably one of the top three terrorist regimes the US should have started on, just by looking at its history of agression made the case stronger to start on Iraq. Also the fact it didn't condemn 9/11.

It harbored terrorists, funded them, and incited them. I am not saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11, but it doesn't matter to me. It is not a war on only those responsible for 9/11, a war just on Al Queda, or a war just on WMD. It is directed against all terrorists. So the argument leftists say about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 is foolish, because this is not what this war is just about - it is more than that.

My only hope is that the US declares war on militant Islam.

[Your Nightmare]

Are you aware of how little space is required to hide 85,000 liters?

Yup

[George W. Bush]

David Kay has said that despite the fact no WMD have been found,they had the knowledge to sell to terrorist and small amounts are not difficult to make.

But then, he has no proof. Therefore there is no legal or scientific case to be made. He offers an opinion. Not exactly a pretext for war. After all, that is what the stink is about, more in foreign policy circles than among ordinary Americans. It's not certain that it will change many votes in the fall. I tend to doubt it will. The only voters who care about it that much have already made up their minds and they are few in number and are aleady committed to their party.

Iraq's scientists could easily have cashed in by selling their knowledge as the nuclear scientist did in Pakistan.He said the war was necessary and that Iraq in the chaotic condition it was in was more dangerous than we had thought.

We're going to have to arrest most of the world if this is the standard for prosecution. You'd have to arrest me because I know how to make or obtain some items that are almost certainly classified as WMD. So do a lot of people on this thread. And Pakistan, our ally, just pardoned the sell-out scientist. We haven't said a word of objection to their harboring and pardoning of a known arms proliferator to the officially declared terrorist states of Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

So, should we now invade Pakistan and get this scientist? He is most certainly guilty of exactly that which you say justifies our invasion of Iraq and arrest of Saddam and his scientists.

Are there announced plans for prosecution of Saddam's scientists for WMD proliferation? Or even for their domestic production efforts inasmuch as we can even find evidence that they did produce any WMD weapons?

Don't get me wrong. I personally would like to end all of this discussion by finding a big cache of WMD in Iraq somewhere.

[George W. Bush]

Saddam headed a terrorist regime. He was a terrorist, and so was his country, even before 9/11.

A terrorist to the Kurds and Sunnis in his country, absolutely. A personal funder of terror bombings in Israel? No doubt of it. A user of gas weapons against Iran (back when he was an ally of the U.S.)? Yep.

A 'gathering danger' to the U.S. because of WMD? Not so far as we can yet prove. But there was that airliner body that was at a paramilitary training camp. So we might yet make a strong case for a 9/11 connection to Saddam. I don't think Saddam's own airline ever had a problem with terrorism so he won't be able to say plausibly that that prop at a camp where known terrorists had trained was exactly innocent. He will have to explain that. We should focus more on it, I think.

I think that we'll have to justify the invasion by showing Saddam to be guilty of aiding and abetting and training some of the 9/11 terrorists or providing such training to Muslim extremists. I think we can make a good enough case for it.

The WMD thing is, internationlly speaking, a little weak no matter how we slice it. We need to stop standing upon such shaky ground if we can't produce some WMD.

My only hope is that the US declares war on militant Islam.

Me too. But let's not hold our breath.

[Peach]

I believe during the introduction of Tenet it was mentioned that there were 5 CIA directors in 7 years!

[yonif]

A 'gathering danger' to the U.S. because of WMD? Not so far as we can yet prove.

I agree, it was a danger, but just as Syria was a danger, probably. However, he was still a terrorist, and the US declared war on all terrorists, no matter if they were having coffee in their house, or planning a terror attack. So it still applies, in my opinion.

But there was that airliner body that was at a paramilitary training camp. So we might yet make a strong case for a 9/11 connection to Saddam.

There might be a connection, true. However, in my opinion the US should not base its war solely on those responsible for 9/11, and I don't think it has.

I don't think Saddam's own airline ever had a problem with terrorism so he won't be able to say plausibly that that prop at a camp where known terrorists had trained was exactly innocent. He will have to explain that. We should focus more on it, I think.

I agree. I am not saying he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. I just think the war on these terrorists is not discrimnated against those responsible for 9/11, but also those who might be responsible for the next one.

I think that we'll have to justify the invasion by showing Saddam to be guilty of aiding and abetting and training some of the 9/11 terrorists or providing such training to Muslim extremists. I think we can make a good enough case for it.

I say that Bush should have made that case before the war. But now it will be a little tricky. However, the case, as you say, should be about how Iraq is a target on the war on terrorism and the fact the type of leadership and Iraq, which was similar in some ways to the Taliban in Afghanistan, led to such a group Al Queda taking refuge there sucessfully. The US must say that the kind of conditions in Iraq made it probable that such a dangerous group could plan attacks against America - not to say there weren't such groups with bases in Iraq (as the US found bases for terror, along with large quantities of suicide vests).

The WMD thing is, internationlly speaking, a little weak no matter how we slice it. We need to stop standing upon such shaky ground if we can't produce some WMD.

I agree. This WMD should have always been a second concern, not the main one.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I'm waiting for someone to say "depends on the definition of 'threat' is" -- aren't you just splitting hairs here?

No. The word "imminent" has something called a definition, and whether Bush said Iraq was an "imminent threat" depends on whether his statements about Iraq meet that definition of "imminent", which they don't, as becomes especially clear from his 2003 State of the Union address in which he said we shouldn't wait until Iraq becomes an "imminent threat".

Not all statements of the form "X is a threat" are assertions that X is an imminent threat. Again: "imminent" has a definition.