On 8/3/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and it rather unambiguously implies that they did not see evidence of > WMDs, since Tenet surely would have considered them an imminent threat. There are several problems with this assessment. 1) The report clearly stated that they had biological agents ready for quick weaponization, as well as bulk fills for chemical weapons. Indeed, the version of saran that they used has the agents combined just before use.
You're arguing with Tenet, if you're saying this means that Iraq had WMDs or posed an immediate threat in some other way. Good luck with that. Is there some reason we shouldn't believe him or the declassified parts of the NIE? 2) Not being an imminent threat does not mean a county does not have WMD.
France doesn't constitute an imminent threat, even though it has a number of H-bombs...which are clearly WMD.
I'm fairly sure that France, despite its disagreements, has not lately been considered an enemy of the United States. Anyway, what is this whole discussion about if not the justification for the war, which clearly was the proposal that Iraq posed an imminent, immediate, mortal, etc., threat. 3) Not stating that there was an imminent threat is not the same as stating
that there is not an imminent threat.
Irrelevant. The point is that it was not a foundation for saying that there were WMDs or there was an immediate threat. 4) Tenet testified in defense of the report after it was known that there
were not any MWDs. At that time, there clearly wasn't a threat. 5) Later in the report, the likelihood of an immediate unprovoked attack by Hussein on the US was assessed as low. In that sense, there wasn't an imminent threat.
Indeed. Why do you think Tenet has bothered to speak out in public against the idea that this was an intelligence failure? He's defending the intelligence community by telling their side of the story... and leaving it up to us to decide if the administration's statements in support of attacking Iraq were justified by the intelligence it received. What do you think, now that you have read the NIE? Were the "immediate threat" and so forth statements justified by the NIE? Was the war justified by the NIE? But, that was said in '98 by Scott Ritter...and Hussein had 5 years to
advance his programs in secret since then.
The NIE was from October 2002. As you may recall, the war was launched a few months later. The rhjetoric was already launched. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
