http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/10/06/iraq.cia/index.html Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is "intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons, and Iraq's expanding international trade provides "growing access" to the necessary materials, said the report, which was released Friday. If left unchecked, the report said, Iraq "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The most recent summary of U.S. intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, the CIA report said that Iraq also is bolstering its stockpile of chemical and biological weapons. Iraqi officials have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction and insist they are not trying to obtain any. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has accused the United States of claiming Iraq has such weapons as "a pretext ... to justify the unjustifiable aggression on Iraq." But the CIA report said that since U.N. inspectors left in 1998, Iraq "has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program and invested more heavily in biological weapons." The country has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and "expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production," the report said. The Baghdad government's chemical warfare agents probably include mustard, sarin, cyclosarin and VX, the report said. It noted that "Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent." Key aspects of Iraq's biological weapons program "are active, and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the [Persian Gulf War]," the report said. "Baghdad has pursued a mobile BW [biological weapons] research and production capability to better conceal its program." The report also said that in 1995, "after four years of claiming they had conducted only 'small-scale, defensive' research, Iraqi officials admitted ... to production and weaponization of biological agents." The agents included anthrax and botulinum toxin, both of which can be deadly. After that admission, "Baghdad did not provide persuasive evidence to support its claims that it unilaterally destroyed its BW agents and munitions," the report said. They "admitted this only after being faced with evidence ... and the defection of Husayn Kamil, former director of Iraq's military industries." The report said many aspects of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs remain uncovered because of "Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts." The report also said Iraq has developed a ballistic missile capability that exceeds limits the United Nations has set. Doesn't this seem like a drastic change in mindset at Langley? What could explain it? A dossier from 007? A directive from on high to 'get on page'?
Here's a thought. Maybe--just maybe--the CIA doesn't divulge all of its intelligence to the people at large. but now it is known that the American people won't get behind security efforts unless they turn the whole damn thing over. Know that should they have to turn EVERYTHING over...it will cost American lives should military action be taken.
In such a situation... wouldn't it be apt to say "no comment. we have nothing to offer on yadda" rather than to create numerous press releases in which you say you don't know what the president is talking about? Making the president look like a putz seems counterproductive too. I frankly don't know why the CIA would divulge information one way or the other... but since they did so in a manner not consistent with the president's verbage a few weeks ago (and didn't apologize about it; neither did the administration)... then one of 3 things has happened this past week... 1) They've collected new information themselves. 2) They were given access to British information. 3) They were told to get on page if they want the $$$ coming up in the war on terror.
Here's a thought. There isn't any evidence, and the Army has been leaking invasion plans to the New York Times for some reason, i don't think they would hesitate to share it if they had any.
well heck. iraq is only the most powerful middle east military state (at least up until 1990), facing the enmity of the world's greatest nuclear power. it seems pretty natural for them to take it to the next level (i.e. nukes for security). but iisn't it pretty hypocritical for the US to say no? why didn't we object to Israel getting nukes? and how long did those sanctions against india and pakistan last?
I think choice 2 is the most likely. Choice 1 isn't really feasible...there hasn't been enough time. Choice 3 isn't feasible either since it is the Congress, not the President, who derives the budget. This includes funding the CIA. Actually it was the United Nations who said no. The US is who will be called upon to give repraisal for Iraq not living up to the deal.
