Posted on 07/15/2004 6:43:20 AM PDT by dead
THESE intelligence critiques don't substantially affect the case for going to war. The case for pre-emption was always that a country that possesses the means to make weapons of mass destruction (WMD) of any sort-especially a regime with the hostile history of Iraq-might provide them to terrorist groups.
The error of the CIA was to refer to "weapons" instead of chemical or biological agents that could rapidly be made into weapons.
The CIA never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, but in fact projected it could have them within five to seven years if it tried to reconstitute its programme closed down after the Gulf War.
You don't need stockpiles of weapons loaded up in bombs and shells to give anthrax or sarin to terrorist groups. UN weapons inspector Hans Blix himself said there were 8,500 litres of anthrax Saddam admitted to making whose destruction he could not demonstrate. Similarly there was a ton of sarin. Even the Russians and the French agreed these chemical and biological agents were unaccounted for.
That seems huge, but that amount of agent would all fit in half a tractor trailer.
And it would take only a few days, a week or two at most, to weaponise those agents in a microbrewry-type facility attached to a restaurant.
In fact, the Senate report documents that Iraq was working on powderising "simulants" - materials like anthrax in every way except toxicity. They could then turn that technique and equipment to work on anthrax. In powder form, anthrax would be very lethal. This means Iraq could have been days or weeks away from preparing agent to give to a terrorist group. To prepare sarin involves only minor modifications to a pesticide plant.
In other words, the CIA was wrong in thinking there might be massive stockpiles of weapons and leading people to expect that. But, given Saddam's hostile stance to the United States and his history of having used chemical weapons twice, the possibility he might weaponise chemical and biological agents for terrorists who might hit us was very real. And that was enough case, in my view, for a preventive war because the time it might take to weaponise agents was far less than the time it would take to build up an invasion force and prepare for war. This is the heart of the matter. Saddam had plenty of ties with terrorist groups from Abu Nidal to Hamas. Chapter 12 of the supporting study to the US Senate report says that there were a dozen or more credible reports of training by Iraq of al-Qa'ida in chemical and bacteriological weapons use. The CIA also had plenty of reports of training in conventional explosives.
The Senate report says the CIA could find no "formal" relationship between Saddam and al-Qa'ida. Well, there are no "formal" relationships in this kind of activity. There are no diplomats in striped suits signing pieces of parchment here. You don't put stuff like this in writing.
The CIA has hundreds of relationships around the world with other intelligence agencies. Of all those, I can think of only two or three where there is any degree of formality, with signed documents and so on. The same is true of other intelligence services.
Al-Qa'ida and Iraq were not going to sign some piece of paper to formalise any links. That is nonsense. So, to say there was no "formal" relationship is really saying nothing. This idea of looking for formal links comes from a mindset that developed during the 1970-80s when state-sponsored terrorism was most prominent. Hezbollah is not rich, so it relies on Iran to pay the bills and the mullahs in Tehran give orders.
Al-Qa'ida is rich on its own. The two countries where it was substantially present-Sudan and Afghanistan-were more terrorist-sponsored states than the other way around. So I would agree that al-Qa'ida was in no way sponsored or ordered around by Iraq.
But I would also agree with the Senate report that al-Qa'ida and Iraq seemed to have overcome their mutual antipathy because al-Qa'ida needed assistance from Iraq - particularly in use of chemicals and bacteriologicals - and Iraq was pleased to see the al-Qa'ida attacks on the United States.
That does not mean that Iraq helped al-Qa'ida commit 9/11 or the earlier World Trade Center bombing. It only means they were happy to do what they could clandestinely to menace the United States. Intelligence and the decision to wage preemptive war are interactions among the nature of the regime, the nature of its ties to terrorist groups and its historical record. Iraq met those requirements in spades, even if it had destroyed all its anthrax and sarin and only had its just-in-time production capacity.
If the Bush administration had made that argument honestly, most people would have gone along with the war on those grounds. If people are waiting for the smoking pot of anthrax to be found before they are willing to wage preventive war, then this argument is right. But concerning a regime with a history like Saddam's, you have to make a judgment. There is no automatic formula here. But when you put the factors together, you can objectively make the case for preemption. However, after all we've been through with Iraq, it will be harder, in political terms, to make the case again.
James Woolsey was director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1993 to 1995. He has been a leading neoconservative promoting the war in Iraq.
"If the Bush administration had made that argument honestly..."
*Rolling Eyes*
He did.
Woolsey helps put it all in persepective.
Not sure I understand what this bit of editorializing is about but I'm glad that The Independent is continuing to side with America and freedom.
The United States could destroy every last weapon in its nuclear arsenal today, and it would still be a nuclear power tomorrow. Any sensible person has understood the premise of this article from day one. Unfortunately the Democrats have played politics with national security by demagoguing the issue in order to weaken the President.
My previous post aside, I agree with you.
That was a unfortunate choice of words by Woolsey, wasn't it?
He's just trying to sit the fence a bit I think:
"See! See! I'm a good, loyal former dem-appointed official, despite just kicking you hard in the shorts!"
BTTT
That's true with both the Irish and Sunday Independents, with the latter you got Gene Kerrigan and that secular fundamentalist Emer O'Kelly (you can tell she used to work for RTE), as for the Times you also have right-libertarian Kevin Myers- unfortunately he is now anti-war.
BTW, what paper do you buy?
BTW, what paper do you buy?
I'm kind of hoping that Woolsey is being considered as DCI. Every interview I've seen him give seems to agree with a conservative view of the WOT. I say 'kind of' because of his ties with the Clinton administration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.