Get out you're beating a dead horse jpegs because I'm putting this thread back on top. It's an important issue and I don't think its getting a fair shake. (Don't worry MacB, I've got your 7 questions thread bookmarked and ready to go when I get back from the gym) I'm biased slightly Republican but I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible so we who support the president can stop being called the ostrich brigade. None of my comments were culled from National Review or Worldnetdaily or Rush Limbaugh personal emails to his pill dealer. I do not have a deal with Bill O'reilley. I finally got around to reading the NIE report along with the British Report that said something about the Nigerian Uranium. Things for the Administration (from key points of NIE report, linked from americanprogress.org): How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. • If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year. • Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade. • Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs. • Based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire, a few tens of thousands of centrifuges would be capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a couple of weapons per year. Now, if Bush also has in his hand a British Report linking a sale of Uranium (albeit the veracity of the report seems shady), and he sees, aquisition of fissile material will allow for a nuclear weapon within a year-- one make's the conclusion, Threat In-a-mint-a-ty of the threat, not immenent per se, but very dangerous. Continuing things for administration, Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Baghdad hides large portions of Iraq's WMD efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. • Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled. • Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production. • Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents. • Although Saddam probably does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Once again, this is most definitely classified as a Threat In-a-mints, not there. Severity, yes. Continuing: In April 1991, the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy, or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal and production infrastructure under UN or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 also demanded that Iraq forgo the future development or acquisition of WMD. Baghdad's determination to hold onto a sizeable remnant of its WMD arsenal, agents, equipment, and expertise has led to years of dissembling and obstruction of UN inspections. Elite Iraqi security services orchestrated an extensive concealment and deception campaign to hide incriminating documents and material that precluded resolution of key issues pertaining to its WMD programs. • Iraqi obstructions prompted the Security Council to pass several subsequent resolutions demanding that Baghdad comply with its obligations to cooperate with the inspection process and to provide United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and IAEA officials immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wished to inspect. • Although outwardly maintaining the facade of cooperation, Iraqi officials frequently denied or substantially delayed access to facilities, personnel, and documents in an effort to conceal critical information about Iraq's WMD programs. Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad's pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure. Once again, I think most sane people would classify this as a Threat Not to mention the fact that the UN acknowledges violations that Iraq had and refused to do anything about it. Still, Bush went to the UN before declaring to go to war. I'll just post the link to the NIE report for brevity's sake so you can read for yourself the numerous violations that Iraq had. Link to NIE -- http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html Continuing through the report... Since December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq as required by the Security Council resolutions. Technical monitoring systems installed by the UN at known and suspected WMD and missile facilities in Iraq no longer operate. Baghdad prohibits Security Council-mandated monitoring overflights of Iraqi facilities by UN aircraft and helicopters. Similarly, Iraq has curtailed most IAEA inspections since 1998, allowing the IAEA to visit annually only a very small number of sites to safeguard Iraq's stockpile of uranium oxide. In the absence of inspectors, Baghdad's already considerable ability to work on prohibited programs without risk of discovery has increased, and there is substantial evidence that Iraq is reconstituting prohibited programs. Baghdad's vigorous concealment efforts have meant that specific information on many aspects of Iraq's WMD programs is yet to be uncovered. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. • Limited insight into activities since 1998 clearly show that Baghdad has used the absence of UN inspectors to repair and expand dual-use and dedicated missile-development facilities and to increase its ability to produce WMD. Nuclear Weapons Program More than ten years of sanctions and the loss of much of Iraq's physical nuclear infrastructure under IAEA oversight have not diminished Saddam's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons. • Iraq's efforts to procure tens of thousands of proscribed high-strength aluminum tubes are of significant concern. All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program. Most intelligence specialists assess this to be the intended use, but some believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs. Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf war that focused on building an implosion-type weapon using highly enriched uranium. Baghdad was attempting a variety of uranium enrichment techniques, the most successful of which were the electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) and gas centrifuge programs. This is I think one of the key points of contention, given MacB's insistence that the steel tubes were not for nuclear programs. Up in the air. The CIA didn't even know what they were being used for. But this is also interesting because it brings up the old question, what was Sadaam hiding and why was he continuing to break UN mandates? . After its invasion of Kuwait, Iraq initiated a crash program to divert IAEA-safeguarded, highly enriched uranium from its Soviet and French-supplied reactors,but the onset of hostilities ended this effort. Iraqi declarations and the UNSCOM/IAEA inspection process revealed much of Iraq's nuclear weapons efforts, but Baghdad still has not provided complete information on all aspects of its nuclear weapons program. • Iraq has withheld important details relevant to its nuclear program, including procurement logs, technical documents, experimental data, accounting of materials, and foreign assistance. • Baghdad also continues to withhold other data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraqi security services in concealing its nuclear facilities and activities. • In recent years, Baghdad has diverted goods contracted under the Oil-for-Food Program for military purposes and has increased solicitations and dual-use procurements—outside the Oil-for-Food process—some of which almost certainly are going to prohibited WMD and other weapons programs. Baghdad probably uses some of the money it gains through its illicit oil sales to support its WMD efforts. Before its departure from Iraq, the IAEA made significant strides toward dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons program and unearthing the nature and scope of Iraq's past nuclear activities. In the absence of inspections, however, most analysts assess that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program—unraveling the IAEA's hard-earned accomplishments. Iraq retains its cadre of nuclear scientists and technicians, its program documentation, and sufficient dual-use manufacturing capabilities to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi media have reported numerous meetings between Saddam and nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling Baghdad's continued interest in reviving a nuclear program. Now I think this works for arguments on both sides, because it shows that Sadaam has no weapons at the time of the report. However, it also shows they have a program ready to go and hungry for nukes, which they could have ready to drop within a year, which to me spells big time Threat. And now for the kicker... • The acquisition of sufficient fissile material is Iraq's principal hurdle in developing a nuclear weapon. • Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad. Baghdad may have acquired uranium enrichment capabilities that could shorten substantially the amount of time necessary to make a nuclear weapon. The distinction between Iraq and Baghdad. This is what gets quoted out of context and misconstrued. Iraq, they say, does not have enough indigenous material to constitute a nuke until the end of the decade. Baghdad on the other hand (which mind you, as has been said earlier, is grubbing for fissle material) is capable of having a nuke within a year. Threat Baghdad may have acquired uranium enrichment capabilities that could shorten time to have a weapon by less than a year. To me this is a threat that Bush speaks of in his addresses, and coupled with the British report that made claims of Nigerian Uranium, I can see where some of the things got said that got said. To be fair, Iraq did not have Nukes that the CIA NIE report knew about before war. Is this justification? I don't know. It seems as if we stopped a beast before it got going. Rest assured, if we didn't do it now, we would have had to within a year given his propensity to aquire nukes and our stand against that. At any rate, I think the report makes it clear that Iraq was a threat. I'll reserve my final judgement for MacB's 7 questions when I get back from the gym. twhy
twhy...nice post. Here's my problem with it: You are mistaking two aspects. They deal specifically with two issues: Whether Iraq has WMDs or the potential for WMDs, and whether Iraq, with ori without WMDs constitutes a threat. They, as you have noted, clearly suggest that WMDs are possible. But, and this is key, and was overlooked by you as an assumption, the experts in place designed to assess such things for the government said that Iraq represented no threat, WMDs or no. And if their expertise is not enough, remember this; Saddam DId have WMDs for quite a long time before, and never used them against us, even while we were attacking him. But, more to the point is this aspect; not the accuracy of the NIE report, which obviously isn't all that great as it relates to WMDs, but that this represents exactly what the intelligence community was telling the administration, and directly contradicts what the administration was telling us it was being told. In short: The intel community was saying maybe WMDs, no threat. Bush was telling us that the intel community was telling him WMDs for sure, imminent, grave, immediate, etc. threat. Direct lie.
[lacing up tennies] I don't think they did have WMD's during the first Gulf War in the forms of nukes. They did use WMD's on the Kurds.
" Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war. Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives. • The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory. Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct. • In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
Not nukes, but other WMDs. Didn;t use them when we were attacking him, why would he suddenly turn into a stark raving appocalyptigogue?
well, he was already stark and raving, is apocalyptgogue really such a big step? besides, as the report makes clear, iraq had WMD and was attempting to obtain fissile material overseas (the niger story, which has never been disavowed by the brits). if it did so, it could become nuclear w/in a year, according to the NIE. imagine a nuclear Iraq, bestride the second largest oil reserves in the world, and with missles capable of hitting israel and europe. can you say "nuclear blackmail" and "global economic meltdown?" this is precisely the situation that now exists on the korean peninsula. this war was fought to keep Iraq from becoming another N. Korea. now, i think the admin certainly's got some 'splainin' to do with regards to the WMD, but in a way, i think they feel that their cause was a just one, a moral one, and if they just "do the right thing" the rest of the world will come around. one of the the administration's biggest weaknesses is they're not always the best advocates for their own policies. certainly bush will never be confused with the "great communicator" or the "great fornicator" in this regard. this is a problem in a political sense, but in a moral sense it shouldn't detract from the righteousness of their actions.
I'll get to the rest later, but do you have anything other than opinion to back this up? I think we have seen a lot of evidence that he's immoral, murderous, self-centered etc. but nothing to suggest that he's unhinged, and in fact he has time and again shown his priorization of self preservation and power maintenance, both of which would be seriously threatened by attacking us, directly or indirectly. Dictators aren't automatically insane, you know. This is an oft repeated slagan, but ultimately eptry.
do whut?? how's invading Iran, resulting in seven year war that ultimately killed millions? sounds fairly apocalyptic to me, but then that's just MHO.
A) So every leader who starts a war is insane? B) You are aware, of course, that we encouraged/supported/helped initiate/fund that invasion, right? Are we also insane?
See, I'm noticing something wierd, the NIE report from the CIA website only goes to 27 pages and the above quote is absent from it, whereas the one linked from American Progress seems to go to 84 or higher. It also doesn't have a link to the full NIE report, which I found by way of CIA.gov. So at first I'm skeptical, even though this is the FAS website. Secondly the above quotes do not say that Sadam is against said force, just that doing so is dangerous, they've drawn a line, but that means they come very close to that line, and crossing it would be easy if we did anything remotely to try and threaten his regime. So we are stuck with a man who could or could not (based on NIE reports) have WMD, with a regime that is being threatened by UN sanctions and Inspectors who he has been giving the run around to, who are making him very nervous. This means that we let the dictator dictate our foriegn relations, and any move we make that could threaten him (which mind you, would be easy to do at this point) could set off the use of WMD. That would be a crappy thing for Bush to live with, two attacks on a nation in a 4 year term. I think the key term you have to look at here is immenent or unavoidable. As a president I say, foreign relations is just not working with this country. I don't have a choice but to attack quick responsibly and with the hopes of removing this man from power. The CIA also says that Sadam would turn to a group such as Al-Qaida for help, which means that the two have to have some sort of relationship. You just don't get out the phone book and look up Bin Laden. You also forgot the quote-- "We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD." They tell Bush that he could use chemical weapons against people in the region, very easily... seen here: # Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition. # Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance. # He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point. # We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield. # Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances. Do you really think Bush would want to live with that over his head? The cries of lies and war for oil just don't seem to add up.
....Office of Special Plans... ....Office of Special Plans... Why oh why won't any of our resident armchair neocons address this issue?
It's the group that Cheney, Wolfy, and the rest of those guys started out to vet/sort the Iraq intelligence, and it was overwhelmingly vetted in a particular direction.... http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact http://www.onlinejournal.com/Specia...503leopold.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...",+Pentagon Not particularly on poiont regarding your exact post, but it is something that nobody, not in the administration or otherwises has addressed yet. It's bizarre, because last year at this time, the OSP and the admin Hawks were heavily criticzing the CIA, stating that the CIA was not being aggressive/creative enough in its asssessments of Iraq, hence the formation of the OSP. Now we are investigating the CIA because its assessment of Iraq was too aggressive?
I was actually planning on making that Atlantic Monthly article my 20 minute bathroom break material tommorow at work. I'll have to get back to you after that.
And on a sidenote-- Leo Strauss, despite his Neo Connisity and Atheism, knew how to read correctly. His reading of Thucydides and Machiavelli is something to look at for any political philosopher.
how's invading Iran, resulting in seven year war that ultimately killed millions? sounds fairly apocalyptic to me, but then that's just MHO. Iran instigated that war by trying to push radical fundamentalism into Iraq and by covertly trying to overthrow Saddam... which is a big part of the reason why we supported Iraq in the fight.
If you can find it linked on the CIA website I'll be happier. If you look in the confidence levels as well they make no mention of the confidence that Sadam will not attack, they mention everything else. This could mean two things, they were not concerned with it, or the "for now" part seems pretty tenable given the increased pressure that was put on them by us to come in line with UN regulations (which it says in high confidence that they were not doing). At any point I think things would have reached a breaking point eventually, and in a post 9-11 world, you can't play by the rules of the Gulf War. They obviously didn't work. UN Inspectors are being given the run around and his WMD programs increased. The UN at some point would have to evetually step in and take action in some way shape or form. Whether they would have this same attitude towards the UN as they would by an advance or attack by us is not clear. 9-11 Changed everything man. Old Cliche but its true. We can't take chances at this point. We didn't attack him, he attacked Kuwait and we stepped in with the help of the UN and stopped him. First and foremost, he should be brought to a war tribunal for those crimes. Simply the pressure we put on him was enough for him to make a move or percieve something as an attack. I'm not saying its grounds for a war, personally I think we should have sent in about 200 more weapons inspectors to just keep them handcuffed. OF course that really doesn't solve a problem. I can see the rationale that would go behind an administration wanting to do this, and why even in the Clinton era they would have plans for stopping his regime. It just needed to be done, plus he was a lot closer to aquiring a nuke at this point as well. And I don't have all the answers but I don't think its as easy and one sided as you are making it out to be. Connections to any terrorists groups would be just as bad. What do you feel Bush's intentions were, just an honest answer please.
