CIA: Iraq not likely to attack U.S. first Bush administration downplays report By BENNETT ROTH Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau RESOURCES WASHINGTON -- The White House downplayed a CIA analysis that Saddam Hussein is not likely to attack the United States first, as the House prepared to vote today on a resolution to grant the president broad authority to use force against him. "Intelligence is limited in what it can tell you with certainty," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, responding to a letter provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to a letter from CIA Director George Tenet, intelligence officials told senators that "given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood would be low" that Saddam would strike first. However, the analysis concluded that Saddam might unleash dangerous weapons or resort to terrorism if Iraq suspected that a U.S. attack could not be deterred. A number of lawmakers seized on the new information to argue that the president was being too hasty in seeking to militarily confront Iraq. They said the administration, by threatening war, may be inviting Saddam to unleash chemical and biological warfare. But Fleischer pointed to the CIA analysis to bolster the president's case that the United States should act soon to prevent Saddam from using his weapons. Otherwise, he said, the Iraqi leader would use those weapons "to blackmail" the United States and other countries. The White House spokesman said the president was aware of the intelligence information provided to the Senate. "He has no quarrels with what he has received from the CIA," said Fleischer. "It goes into the full context of all the information he receives about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses, and the threat that he presents." The flap over the CIA material underscores the difficulty the public and lawmakers have in sorting through conflicting information that has surfaced regarding how great a threat Iraq poses. In a speech Monday evening in Ohio, Bush said that Iraq may be able to develop nuclear weapons within a year and "would be in a position to threaten America." But Daniel Benjamin, an expert in terrorism who worked in the Clinton administration, said the CIA assessment that Iraq would not likely provoke an attack is "completely consistent with what I know about Iraq." He said that Saddam is not prone to do anything that would cause retaliation or endanger the survival of his regime. While Congress is expected to back the president, administration officials were still having difficulty building United Nations support for a tough resolution that would force Saddam to disarm or face military action. At the White House, Bush had a 25-minute phone conversation with French President Jacques Chirac but failed to reach an agreement. Chirac and other veto-holding permanent members of U.N.'s Security Council want to give weapons inspections a chance before invading Baghdad. The president briefly mentioned the possibility of war with Iraq in remarks Wednesday to Hispanic leaders who were invited to a White House reception for Hispanic Heritage month. After noting that "the Hispanic population in our country has served disproportionately in our military," he referred to the ongoing war on terrorism and possible confrontation with Saddam. He said that if the Iraqi leader won't disarm and the United Nations won't act, "for the sake of our freedom we will lead other countries that love freedom as much as we do and disarm him." On Capitol Hill, lawmakers continued to debate resolutions, with a majority of Republicans and a number of Democrats voicing support for giving the president the go-ahead on military action. "It is our responsibility to give the president the authorization he needs," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. "The question of whether the security of the U.S. is threatened has been answered -- and the answer is yes. It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I will vote yes." Announcing his support of the war resolution, Rep. Jim Turner, D-Crockett, called Saddam Hussein "an international outlaw who is a clear and present danger to our country." But in the House, which is expected to vote on the resolution today, a vocal group of Democrats, including several from Texas, has objected to giving the president such wide latitude to wage war. Rep. Ken Bentsen, D-Houston, said the president has not tried hard enough to build international coalitions to deal with Iraq and noted "the rising level of belligerence coming from some in this administration." Bentsen said he supported an alternative resolution sponsored by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., which would require the United States to work with the United Nations before authorizing military action. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside, said there was no reason to give Bush authority to invade Iraq. "There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war," he said. A number of Democrats said they would support the president on Iraq, but used the debate to complain that the White House was ignoring the domestic economy as it focussed on foreign affairs. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Beaumont, said he would support the resolution "to send a message to Saddam Hussein that America means business." At the same time, Lampson said he was disappointed at the president's handling of the economy. "It is a disaster," he said. "The administration is asleep at the wheel on domestic policy." In the Senate, the administration picked up support from a number of wavering Democrats, including Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam War veteran, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., one of the Senate's top leaders. Reid said that while he was supporting the president he advised Bush to judiciously use his power. "As president of the United States, you are leader of the Free World, not its ruler," Reid said. The chances of the Senate voting today diminished after Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., made it clear he would use parliamentary tactics to delay consideration of the resolution. Houston Cronicle I know. Fleisher and the rest of the neocons around Bush know more than the CIA. Besides Bush is a "good Christian man" as you hear in Texas, and we know he wouldn't lie. See also the London Times which which is not as protective of Bush. According to them the report also says:“Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.” CIA report from the London Times Great. Little threat to the US. However, working class Americans and Iraqis can be killed in the war so Bush and the neocons can win elections and do their oily geopolitical thing. In addition we increase the chance of terrorism and screwing up the economy.
Am I mistaken or did the CIA say Iraq was not going to invade Iraq? And didn't they also fail to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the breakup of the Soviet Union? And many have said on this very bbs for months that Saddam is unlikely and (probably) unable to attack the US homeland. That does not mean he is not a threat to the US. As Fleischer pointed out.
Considering whatever he does, we can retaliate many times over with more drastic effects, like wiping Iraq off the map, what exactly does Saddam have to gain by attacking us?
Hayes, btw I hate to destroy the pleasure of momentary agreement, but I think you may be a neocon. As I understand it neocon refers to people who used to be democrats or even liberals, but have become Republicans or conservatives. Many times it is over one issue, usually foreign policy oriented. The famous Jewish neocon cabal around Bush have transferred their lifetime of big defense spending anti-communism and opposition to third world liberation movements to militaristic anti islamicism, and support for Sharon type policies in Israel. These people still have many positions that could be characterized as liberal or moderate.
So....a neocon is an adult? (note: the preceding was just a light-hearted jab...mainly aimed at RM95 who takes great displeasure in such comments)
That's funny. Is 26 not an adult yet? Or is it the age you act, which truthfully, does not make me an adult (nor do I never hope to become one!).
Actually, I think he is a Libertarian. I could be wrong. In any event, there is no point to that label, is there? I am one of the ones who has said Saddam will never directly attack the US first because he does not have the IQ of a roasted asparagus. I just really think that this is funny: Is this the same "intelligence" that ties Saddam to 9-11? It is really odd that there is this "intelligence" war going on between the White House and the CIA. Makes me proud to be an American.
The CIA has been wrong before, and will be again. But that doesn't mean that their reports hold no value, or are never correct. I believe if they weren't right at least half the time, they'd probably be scrapped as ineffective, or drastically restructured. They could be wrong here, but it is at least something to consider.
Not that I disagree that this is an issue (geez....did I just come close to agreeing with Glynch?), but as always....I have to play devil's advocate: remember: the CIA is not the only intelligence gathering community for the US....just the mostly widely known. These organizations don't always "play nice" together, and they don't always have the same information. Also, they have to interpret the information they gather. The CIA may gather information "A" while say, the NSA may gather information "B." Their interpretations of their respective information may lead them to two different conclusions. If so, human nature dictates that not only will they prop their own conclusion, but they'll diss the other. In the end, it's just a high stakes card game.....who ever "guesses" correctly gets recognition and moves up in importance.
As always, I want to contribute something insightful. The following may perhaps shed light on what the term "neocon" really means:
That picture looks exactly like my Grandpa. I don't think it's in our best interests to wait until Saddam has nuclear weapons and then re-assess the likelihood of an attack. I don't think anyone's saying "As soon as Hussein has one crude nuclear bomb, the Iraqi Navy's going to be coming ashore in Florida." One of my right-wing-nut friends posited that what Hussein could do with a nuclear bomb is sneak it into Manhattan and then use it as leverage against US intervention in the Middle East. In other words, "OK, Yankee imperialist scum, I'm invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and I just thought you should know I have successfully smuggled a nuc-u-lar bomb into New York City. If you intervene, my operatives will detonate it." Nah, I think it's probably best we go ahead and get this taken care of now.
Glynch, I'm neither a Republican nor am I a conservative. In fact, I worked on Al Haig's campaign in '88. That is not something I'd do today. You are barking up the wrong tree. My views are so diverse on so many issues that it really is silly to try and label me. I've tried to tell you that before. I am certainly for a proactive and 'strong' foreign policy, but that single likeness out of many hardly makes me a neoconservative. How many conservatives would have voted for Gore? Or Clinton? I find it humorous that your views are in line with Buchanan. Should we label you a right wing nutcase? (lol) What “Neoconservative Agenda”? Neocons are the newly fashionable targets of media derision. By Neil Seeman, a senior policy analyst at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank. March 6, 2002 he Left has been slinging around the "neoconservative agenda" epithet for years. Nothing new here. It's one of those gems you might find littered in fascinating periodicals with names like the Journal of Canadian Studies. Before 9/11, anti-GMO terrorists (and surly assistant professors at Canadian universities) loved to rile free-marketeers with the neocon slam — as in, "Your tall skinny latté's got 'neoconservative agenda' written all over it, man." After 9/11, terms like "neoconservative agenda" and "neoconservative" have acquired a new frisson in the anti-war lexicon. As is his wont, Pat Buchanan fired the first fusillade. In an op-ed for USA Today entitled, "Whose War is This?," he let fly at the "neoconservative media," the "neoconservative line," and the "neoconservative movement": The war Netanyahu and the neocons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As the possibility that President Bush might expand the war on terrorism gains momentum, so too does the histrionics of the anti-war anti-neocons. Herewith Hardball's Chris Matthews, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle: Who's writing this script? Who hijacked our war? The answer: a coterie of "neo-conservative" thinkers led by Weekly Standard publisher William Kristol and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Out of the ashes of Sept. 11, they and their rightist associates have found what they've long wanted: an American government heading toward war in the Middle East. They have diverted the hunt for bin Laden much as the Crusades of a millennium ago were diverted from saving the Holy Land to idiotic conquests of Belgrade, Constantinople and any number of targets along the way.Kristol and Wolfowitz have wanted this for a long time. Odd that. Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan. Two peas in a pod. Neocons are the newly fashionable targets of media derision. Middle East News Online calls neoconservatives "consistent: they always opt for war, the bigger the better." The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says they "believe America as a righteous country ought to impose its will on rogue nations throughout the world." Columnist Don Feder says they're prone to "anti-Islamic triumphalist warmongering." For neoconservatives, opined the International Herald Tribune "acts of undeclared war are what win respect for the United States and demonstrate its 'credibility.'" And yet, statistically, the notion that a cabal of neoconservative, fiercely pro-Israel ideologists is singly driving the war's expansion doesn't compute. An International Herald Tribune/Pew Research Center poll of U.S. opinion leaders in politics, media, business, culture, and government reports that 50 percent would support a U.S. attack against regimes, such as Iraq or Somalia, if they were found to support terrorism. That's a quantum leap beyond the combined staff at every right-leaning periodical and every Reaganite think tank. Sorry folks: There's no vast right-wing conspiracy here. Curiously, though, the anti-war, anti-neocon cant continues. Neocons are "Washington's War Party"; the neocons are implacable and blood thirsty; and so on and so forth. Not so long ago, neoconservatives were a few estranged liberals, mugged by reality. Now they're everywhere, mugging America's entire political agenda? I don't think so.
Hayes, interesting article. Glad to see the St. Louis Post Dispatch, one of my old home towns, criticizing the neocon gang. The author said: And yet, statistically, the notion that a cabal of neoconservative, fiercely pro-Israel ideologists is singly driving the war's expansion doesn't compute. He tries to "disprove this by ridicule" or saying that there are other opinion leaders that disagree, or that the cabal is relatively small. I think that is obvious that others disagree as we can see many people in the CIA disagree. The important point is that this relatively small group has convinced Bush that he can be a great Chruchillian-lijke figure by invading Iraq. Bush can also clearly see the short term political advantage as Karl Rove outlinedd on that computer disk that outlined their plans for creating a "positive issue environment." leading up to the election. Bush needed noone to tell him that some money could be made on Iraqi oil.
