Gore accuses Bush of treason

You've continually brought up the theilmann thing in this and other threads, so i did a little more digging, some on deep background. there's a nice little article in the current issue of the economist that made the point that the office of INR (literally, Information 'N Research) at state had made the same evaluation of Saddam's capability in 1991, but was proved wrong by events, contributing to the reasons they were perhaps ignored this time. I called my friend who used to work in that department. He in fact sat next to the guy whose duty it was to process the proliferation intel. he confirmed the story, and also said INR was institutionally more cautious than other intel agencies. he said the most objective tended to be NSA, and that agencies such as the CIA that rely on human intel "will always get information, it's the nature of the beast," meaning essentially that they're often told something exists, even if it doesn't, because they're paying for the information. The implication of course, is that if CIA had Saddam on it's payroll and he told them he had WMD, you'd have to say that's a pretty reliable source. In effect, Saddam was being paid by the oil-for-palaces program to maintain the impression he WMD, whether he did or not. in such a scenario, the only way to really know the truth is to examine the facts on the ground after Saddam had been deposed, and even then it's not entirely clear. I'm not suggesting the admin said "let's just go for it and figure it out later," but that they had what they thought was reliable intel and acted on it.

it's interesting to compare the current debate with what went on in 1998 with Clinton. james Lileks does a good job:
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0204/021004.html

--
went back to the microfilm today to February 1998, when the Clinton adminstration was making the case for attacking Iraq. How things change. Clinton was arguing that Saddam not only had WMD, but that one day he might want to make more WMD, and this wasn’t acceptable. Interesting to read between the lines - the Clinton administration seemed to be arguing that the potential for future production was itself a valid reason to strike. Military force is never "the first answer,' Clinton said, “but sometimes it’s the only answer.” “It Saddam isn’t stopped now,” the AP story said, quoting Clinton,“’He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, someway, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.’” Thus spake Clinton in 1998. He went on to note that the strikes planned could not possibly destroy Saddam’s arsenal, because A) they didn’t know where everything was, and B) they didn’t want to kill Iraqis by unleashing clouds of toxins. And it gets better: a sidebar noted that this war plan – Desert Thunder – had been prepared weeks before, in case Saddam stiffed in the inspectors.

Bill Clinton had a plan to go to war before the crisis flared! What does that tell you? Obviously, he was looking for any excuse! Halliburton! We all know about the ties between Clinton and Halliburton – he gave them a sweet no-bid contract after his Balkans war, you know.

Anyway: it's deja vut all over again. You want to talk imminence? WMD? Democratic concern and conviction? Go back to the papers of 1998; it’s all there, right down to the terrorist links: Hezbollah, for example, swears it will strike Israel if the US attacks Iraq. (A poll of Palestinians showed that 94% supported Iraq, and 77% wanted Iraq to kill Jews if the US attacked Iraq.) Bob Dole was quoted as supporing the strikes but urging Clinton to seek Congressional Authorization. A story on Bush 41’s reaction said that the former president would completely support Clinton if he decided to attack, but noted that Bush 41 urged Clinton to get more international support - which was lacking at the time.

And indeed, Kofi struck a deal. Which fell apart by summertime. Which lead to cruise missile strikes. Which lead to boredom and disengagement. Which lead to half a decade of Saddam on the throne and the dissidents in the shredders and the tots in the gulag and dead people heaped in ditches and oil-for-palaces deals and Uday and Qusay pleasuring themselves in Rapeland Incorporated and Abu Nidal putting his feet up in a Baghdad apartment, pouring a nice cool glass of tea, and thinking: ah. This is the life.

I’m so old I actually remember when the Democrats cared about Iraq.