Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SunTracker on June 18, 2004, 03:34:47 PM
-
Russian President Putin said his intelligence agency informed Bush that Iraq was planning terror attacks on the U.S. (both on and off mainland U.S.).
This warning came after the Sept 11 attacks.
Just saw this on CNN news. Will try to find an internet article.
-
Sooo....won't be going with the "God told me to do it!" defence then?
-
Saw that too, but I bet the media is gonna bury that one with the second beheading.
-
Yeah waffle, I was wondering why this story was receiving so little coverage. The second most powerful country in the world tells us that we are going to be attacked (multiple times), and it barely gets 15 seconds coverage.
-
Russia is not the second most powerful nation in the world.
And that still does not justify the war.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
And that still does not justify the war.
-SW
ok what does then? wait for them to do something to us or someone else, then react; or take preventative action.
like a parole officer. iraq was already on parole in a sense from the invading of kuiat, and the officer heard about the parolee being at a gun store, right after being at the bar. the officer went down there and said "what do the 5 fingers say to the face?"
-
Getting information that your country is about to be attacked is not justification for war?
Its debatable whether Russia is the 2nd most powerful country, but many (including myself) still place them above China.
-
United Kingdom is above Russia and China in terms of more powerful.
One country gives you intelligence that could be faulty at best, ours up to date has been piss poor with regards to Iraq, but you take that ball and run with it?
The thing with the most emphasis to take the population to war was WMDs, still no idea where they are if they still existed.
I can't believe we can go to war over intelligence thats stated by only one country and not verified by any other that its possible we'll be attacked... by Iraq of all places.
Just take their word for it, don't verify it. Sure, sounds good.
-SW
-
I have to wonder why they were apparently telling us this at the same time they were opposing the UN resolutions.
Is that about the time line?
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Russian President Putin said his intelligence agency informed Bush that Iraq was planning terror attacks on the U.S. (both on and off mainland U.S.).
This warning came after the Sept 11 attacks.
... was about time ...
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=3&u=/ap/20040618/ap_on_re_eu/russia_iraq
Putin Says Russia Gave U.S. Intel on Iraq
54 minutes ago
By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA, Associated Press Writer
ASTANA, Kazakhstan - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Friday his government warned Washington that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was preparing attacks in the United States and its interests abroad — an assertion that appears to bolster President Bush (news - web sites)'s contention that Iraq (news - web sites) was a threat.
Putin emphasized that the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the U.S.-led war last year, but his statement was the second this month in which he has offered at least some support for Bush on Iraq.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.
"Despite that information ... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," he said in the Kazakh capital, Astana, after regional economic and security summits. He said Russia didn't have any information that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks," he said.
Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the alleged plots or mention whether they were tied to al-Qaida. He said Bush had personally thanked one of the leaders of Russia's intelligence agencies for the information but that he couldn't comment on how critical it was in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq.
In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Putin's tip didn't give a time or place for a possible attack.
Bush alleged Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), in Sudan.
Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections — not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said.
However, a commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq, they did not appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."
Also Thursday, a top Russian diplomat called for international inspectors to resolve conclusively the question of whether Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction.
"This problem must be resolved ... because to a great extent it became the pretext for the start of the war against Iraq," the Interfax news agency quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov as saying. He said such a finding would allow the U.N. Security Council to "finally close the dossier on Iraqi weapons."
In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, Putin sharply rebuked the United States for going to war despite opposition within the U.N. Security Council and said the threat posed to international security by the war was greater than that posed by Saddam.
But Putin's relationship with Bush is warm by the accounts of both leaders, and last week he said he has no patience for those who criticize Bush on Iraq.
"I don't pay attention to such publications," Putin said of media criticism of Bush at the end of the Group of Eight summit in the United States, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency.
Putin said opponents who criticize Bush on Iraq "don't have any kind of moral right. ... They conducted exactly the same kind of policy in Yugoslavia."
Russia vehemently opposed the NATO (news - web sites) bombing attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999, which the United States pushed for under President Clinton (news - web sites).
-
So 2 years later they were opposing the UN resolution to use force.
Thanks.
-
"In Washington, a U.S. official said Putin's information did not add to what the United States already knew about Saddam's intentions.
"
which is he had no intentions other then pipe dreams.
-
Originally posted by JB73
like a parole officer. iraq was already on parole in a sense from the invading of kuiat, and the officer heard about the parolee being at a gun store, right after being at the bar. the officer went down there and said "what do the 5 fingers say to the face?"
some parts of your analogy weren't exactly on "on the money" and it left out some issues. I kept the same theme but just tuned it up a bit.
a guy is on parole and has a parole officer who is charged with keeping track of him (the UN), one of the neighbors down the street(Bush and company) decided that the parole officer wasn't being strict enough with the guy, and in the opinion of the neighbor, the parolee wasn't being open enough with his parole officer. he also suspects (from rumors through the neighborhood. most likely started by himself) that the man has a large cache of weapons in that house. the parole officer has sent cops in to search many times and they haven't had any luck but the neighbor knows he could find them if he could just get in there and look.
so, despite the wishes of the parole officer, and pleading of the majority of neighbors in the area, the neighbor(now vigilante), with the help of some thugs who are old friends of his, gathers a mob (recruiting members through flimsy reasoning or contract obligations where they agreed to defend the neighborhood, being exploited to contort this plan to fit under a rough heading of defense) and they do a home invasion, stage a brawl in the guys house, locked the guys younger sons in a back room and abused them while trying to extract info to aid the search for the parolee who is hiding in his basement, eventually they find him and lock him up. the vigilante then apologizes for the torture and sexual molestation of the sons(and accidental killing of a few during questioning) though takes no responsibility for himself or his mob mentality, it was simply a case of some mob members getting out of hand. he then sets up some guy he found in the house who didn't seem to fight the invasion, as the new head of house hold. he then informs him "you're in charge now. it's your house, do what you like, you're free. however, some of us are going to be living here for a few years, to make sure we like where this is headed."
after the invasion was over the vigilante realized that he'd completely trashed the house and it was no longer fit for the remaining, newly liberated, and extremely grateful (though some are still killing mob members whenever they can get away with it) family members. so he hires his brother to do the repairs (at price-gouging rates) and then divides the bill among the very neighbors who tried to talk him out of the whole damn thing in the first place.
luckily however, the vigilante doesn't own his house (it is owned by the very people stuck with the bill for his fiasco) and his four year lease expires soon, so they have until November for the reality of his situation to sink in and decide not to renew the contract with the vigilante and his group of thugs.
-
Naa its old story
Czech Inteligence agancy had suspicion that Iraq's ambasador gave some money to Muhamed Atta. We also doubt that they could meet at prague. Then we claim that we do not have any evidence, if they meet nor Iraq's ambasador gave him any money.
This statement were present in American press like this.
"Muhamed Atta got money for 9/11 at Prague from iraqi ambasador" .. :rolleyes:
So what shall we do when we see half of emreeka crying that Iraq paid 9/11 ... we can only laugh at it, since we know how were this information generated
-
So your going to try and blame the Russians?
Everyone knows the Iraq was was unjustified from the start. That's why it's had so little "real" support from the world community.
Iraq was an unprovoked and unjust war of choice, launched by a US president against a regime that, posed no threat to the US or anyone else.
...-Gixer
-
its amazin you internet tards have more intelligence info than the most powerful govs in the world - LOL
go Bush!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
its amazin you internet tards have more intelligence info than the most powerful govs in the world - LOL
go Bush!
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.
Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?
Go Hilary!
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Toad
So 2 years later they were opposing the UN resolution to use force.
Thanks.
It's not really playing fair if you introduce logical arguments.
-
Iraq was an unprovoked and unjust war of choice, launched by a US president against a regime that, posed no threat to the US or anyone else.
Yep, everyone was safe. Just ask the Kurds, Kuwatis, or any of those people in mass graves. Yep, the world was safe and sound and free of dirt worshipping savages before we invaded.
-
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.
Whats amazing is the U.S. has not been attacked since 2001!
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Iraq was an unprovoked and unjust war of choice, launched by a US president against a regime that, posed no threat to the US or anyone else.
Yep, everyone was safe. Just ask the Kurds, Kuwatis, or any of those people in mass graves. Yep, the world was safe and sound and free of dirt worshipping savages before we invaded.
Savages that worship and imaginary deity over dirt still remain savages.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
its amazin you internet tards have more intelligence info than the most powerful govs in the world - LOL
go Bush!
Sure, coz we can read reports from our BIS in our language and then we can read them in english and see how CIA did translate them for poor missinformed president.
Sutch statements are not kept in secret over here. We still have enough legal capacity to handle sutch news, its not nessesery to keep everything Secret to protect us.
We are not sheep we know very well , that top secret things in name of security are usualy biggest BS, g`night stories
-
I think my boss is planning to conquer the world. If I tell the White House about this, will they bomb him for me?
I'd love to see that happen.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.
Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?
Go Hilary!
...-Gixer
Screw the world community. My POTUS wasn't elected to protect them. If he receives intelligence from multiple sources that Iraq has ties with Al Qaida and is planning attacks on the US, if his advisors tell him it's a "slam dunk" that Iraq has WMD and is a threat, he's OBLIGATED to remove that threat.
My only regret is he failed to nuke Baghdad.
-
I'm sure if it was reliable information bush would've announced it to the nay sayers long ago.
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
I'm sure if it was reliable information bush would've announced it to the nay sayers long ago.
::cough:: Russia was a naysayer.
-
Then why didnt he tell everyone that he had infromation from russia, he needs all the scapegoats he can get to win the reelection.
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
Then why didnt he tell everyone that he had infromation from russia, he needs all the scapegoats he can get to win the reelection.
Long sleeves. Im sure he's got plenty up them.
-
Is US cutting down (now or in the near future) the debts of former USSR or Russia as we call that country today?
-
Originally posted by Staga
Is US cutting down (now or in the near future) the debts of former USSR or Russia as we call that country today?
No idea... but Im interested why Putin came out now, too - odd timing.
-
Heh Putin with intelligence? The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.
Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!
:aok
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Heh Putin with intelligence? The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.
Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!
:aok
well you doesnt have to visit doctors anymore... stupidity can not be cured
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Heh Putin with intelligence? The same Putin that didn't know he lost a Submarine during training...wasn't he on vacation at the time... Putin is a fool... I'm surprised that Russia isn't playing old Ballards on the radio saying he died of a cold.
Commie watermelon will always be Commie chit!
:aok
First of all I have to thank you :D
I am not comrade Putin's fan. What we got now - with puppet parliament elected by ignorant crowd, economical and political stagnation that looks almost like happy-70s with Brezhnev and Party - can result in a social explosion in next 2-3 years. There is not even a chance of military coup... You guys have no idea of what goes on here. Your media focus on things that are not important. It's all very sad :( The saddest thing is that in 2007 I'll probably vote for commies. They are the only organized opposition to the regime.
I don't know why Putin said that. I think it can be some kind of agreement, a little help to his friend George... I hate to see all this dirty political games, when whole nations, including mine and yours are sold out for pre-election ratings.
-
For once I agree with Boroda... Best of Luck to Both of our Countries.
:)
-
Clinton defends successor's push for war (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html)
Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
Given the title of the thread and previous cat-fights between some of the posters in this thread, I thought this was an appropriate place to highlight a fomer President's view.
Depending, of course, on the meaning of "is".
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
-
Clinton's keeping them happy so he can sell more books
:lol
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.
Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?
Go Hilary!
...-Gixer
Dunno bout enyone else but I have yet to see anything "proving" the intellegence false
Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Go Hilary!
...-Gixer
Oh and BTW Even the dlinton administration claimed he had WMDs.
Bush took decisive action on it on it Clinton didint.
Bout the only difference betweent he two
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Whats more amazing is how badly the most powerful gov (US) has acted on such poor intelligence which we all know has since proven to be false. And that we still have internet tards trying to defend the decision even when there are those in the admin trying to distance themselves as far as possible from it.
Anyone seen any WMD'S? Or are we still investigating a couple of trailers, and links to Niger?
Go Hilary!
...-Gixer
Oh and justr for the record It would have been ok with me if Bush had said "We are going into Iraq because its tuesday"
I'da been fine with it.
Was long overdue
-
I'd pay for the whole Cold War fear rather than this "war for oil" chit.
Remember the old days before 9/11?
-
for the haters of this admin not to believe...
9/11 panel: New evidence on Iraq-Al-Qaida
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 6/20/2004 5:27 PM
WASHINGTON, June 20 (UPI) -- The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of the security services of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may have been a member of al-Qaida involved in the planning of the suicide hijackings, panel members said Sunday.
John F. Lehman, a Reagan-era GOP defense official told NBC's "Meet the Press" that documents captured in Iraq "indicate that there is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaida."
The Fedayeen were a special unit of volunteers given basic training in irregular warfare. The lieutenant colonel, Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, has the same name as an Iraqi thought to have attended a planning meeting for the Sept. 11 attacks in January 2000, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The meeting was also attended by two of the hijackers, Khalid al Midhar and Nawaf al Hamzi and senior al-Qaida leaders.
Lehman said that commission staff members continued to work on the issue and experts cautioned that the connection might be nothing more than coincidence.
"Shakir is a pretty common name," said terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen, "and even if the two names refer to the same person, there might be a number of other explanations. Perhaps al-Qaida had penetrated Saddam's security apparatus."
Analysts say the Fedayeen was not an intelligence unit, but an irregular militia recruited from clans loyal to the regime in the capital, in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit and in the surrounding Tigris valley area. Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank set up by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, described them to United Press International last year as "thugs and bumpkins."
He said the Fedayeen were "at the low end of the food chain in the security apparatus, doing street level work for the regime."
Nevertheless, the revelation seems sure to stoke the controversy over the extent of links between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime, links that were cited by the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.
On Wednesday, the commission published a staff statement saying that contacts between the regime and al-Qaida "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship" and that, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Critics of the Bush administration seized on the comments as evidence that the White House had sought to mislead Americans about the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida.
President Bush's likely Democratic opponent, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said the president need to give "a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose it now turns out is not supported by the facts."
Both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, however, continued to stress that the links were extensive. Cheney hinted that the commission did not have all the facts, telling one interviewer that he "probably" had access to intelligence commission staff and members had not seen.
Sunday, Lehman acknowledged that, "the vice president was right when he said he may have things that we don't yet have. And we are now in the process of getting this latest intelligence."
Democratic panel member Richard Ben-Veniste agreed that the panel should study any more recent intelligence, "If there is additional information, we're happy to look at it, and we think we should get it."
Lehman added that the row illustrated the political minefield the commission was trying to tiptoe through in an election year when the focus of their inquiry is such an explosive issue. "We're under tremendous political pressures. Everything we come out with, one side or the other seizes on in this election year to try to make a political point on," he said.
He pointed out that the Clinton White House had made the same charges the current administration did about the danger that Iraq might pass chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaida. Those charges, he said, formed the basis for the missile strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Sudan in August 1998. "The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development," he said.
Commission Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, played down the differences between the commission's view and that of the administration. "When you begin to use words like 'relationship' and 'ties' and 'connections' and 'contacts,'" he told ABC's "This Week," "everybody has a little different view of what those words mean. But if you look at the core statements that we made ... I don't think there's a difference of opinion with regard to those statements.
"If there is, it has to be spelled out to me. "
Chairman Thomas Kean, meanwhile, stressed that the staff statement released Wednesday did not represent the settled view of the whole commission: "These staff reports have come along every now and then in connection with our public hearings. These staff reports are interim documents. The commission, for instance, does not get involved, the members, in the staff reports. When we do the report itself, that will be a product of the entire commission."
He added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."
The commission's two days of meetings last week marked their final public gatherings. They are to deliver a final report by July 26. Congress formed the commission to look into possible U.S. intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which some 3,000 people were killed after the hijacking of four jetliners than crashing the aircraft into buildings in New York and Washington and in rural Pennsylvania.
What a witch hunt - this "commission" is as laughable as the 9/11 one ...
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
Russian President Putin said his intelligence agency informed Bush that Iraq was planning terror attacks on the U.S. (both on and off mainland U.S.).
This warning came after the Sept 11 attacks.
Just saw this on CNN news. Will try to find an internet article.
LOL. And Bush and the Neo-Con spin machine just sat on this story throughout the whole pre-invasion period when they were desperately trying to jutify the war? Sure they did :rolleyes:
Sounds to me like Putin trying to curry favour; wonder what the quid-pro-quo will be?
-
The following is material read into the Senate record during the debate on the Congressional Resolution to authorize military action to disarm Iraq. I light of it, I cannot understand the current media drumbeat regarding the 9/11 Commissions report about there being no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qa’ida. I have not read the Commission’s report (anyone have a link?), so I don’t know if the media is taking things out of context (like that has never happened before). Bipartisan does not mean non-partisan, as was obvious if you watched the questioning of Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld (to name just two). Neither do I recall anyone in the Administration stating unequivocally that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks; only that there was evidence of contact between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, and of Iraq’s state-sponsorship of terrorism. The following discussion and testimony seems to bear those claims out. So, what gives with the Commissions report?
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. BOB GRAHAM, Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate’s forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam’s decisionmaking regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq’s unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.
Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack—let me put a time frame on it—in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator LEVIN: Now if he did initiate an attack you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . .But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness’s qualifications —‘‘in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now’’—were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh’s question of Iraqi links to al-Qa’ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action. (bold added for emphasis)
Sincerely,
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
STATEMENT BY DCI GEORGE TENET, October 8, 2002
There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam’s growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech. Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low—in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD—there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build. His past use of WMD against civilian and military targets shows that he produces those weapons to use not just to deter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues.
It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken, but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and whether or not the President had access to that information. The insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and, why didn’t he do something about 9/11?
It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the President’s call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why wouldn’t you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United States today?