Posted on 02/05/2004 8:46:13 AM PST by demlosers
CIA Director George Tenet said today that US analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat.
In his first public defence of pre-war intelligence, Tenet said analysts had varying opinions on the state of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes.
Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House that summarised intelligence on Iraq’s weapons programmes.
Analysts “painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programmes that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests, “ he said in a speech at Washington’s Georgetown University.
“No one told us what to say or how to say it,” he said.
Snip...
Kelly was outed last July as the source behind an explosive report by BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan.
Gilligan reported that the government included in a September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons the claim that some weapons of mass destruction could be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to do so, knowing it to be wrong.
Again, the press[BBC] and Brit opposition leaders appear to mislead.
Then what was Powell's speech before the UN Security Council all about?
Powell said, "We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities."
"At this biological weapons-related facility on November 25th, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared -- something we almost never see at this facility and we monitor it carefully and regularly."
"Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax. But UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters."
"One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents."
"Second, as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents."
"If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq War, UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be on the order of a thousand tons."
"We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry. To all outward appearances, even to experts, the infrastructure looks like an ordinary civilian operation. Illicit and legitimate production can go on simultaneously or on a dime. This dual-use infrastructure can turn from clandestine to commercial and then back again."
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan."
"There is ample evidence that Iraq has dedicated much effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs."
All of this was asserted before the UN and the world, not as speculation, but as fact with physical evidence to support it.
Yet, in support of Bush and the war, we're being asked to believe in varying degrees, the UN, Bill Clinton, Senate and House Democrats, Iraqi defectors and lastly the claims of Saddam Hussein himself, for the existence of these WMDs.
Last time I checked, all of these people were known liars then and they're known liars now. If I didn't believe anything they said then, why on earth would I believe anything they say now?
Who's quotes are going to be trotted out next to support Bush? Madeline Albright? Janet Reno? Hillary?!
I know I'm not expressing myself well, what I'm trying to say is, we're letting the Dems draw us (the Administration) into a debate rehashing (parsing) the actual level of threat.
What we ought to be focusing on is not the accuracy of the intel, nor WMD, nor anything else.
We need to focus on simple things rather than engaging in this endless parsimonious debate, Iraq represented a DANGER to the U.S. and our interests, we acted with full Congressional authorization, Saddam is out of power. End of story, no more debate.
Tell the Dems to shove it -- quit trying to define what is is.
"We do know that he (Saddam) has been actively and persistently pursuing nuclear weapons for more than 20 years. But we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons.' -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Sept. 18, 2002, before House Armed Services Committee.
"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction ... but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.' -- Rumsfeld, Sept. 19, 2002, Senate Armed Services Committee.
"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.' -- Bush, Oct. 2, 2002, after reaching agreement with House leaders on Iraq resolution.
"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?' -- Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati.
"The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.' -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003, at United Nations.
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.' -- Bush, March 16, 2003, news conference after Azores summit with Spanish, British and Portuguese leaders.
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.