--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We judge that Iraq has... chemical and biological weapons. (5) > > Weapons, yes. But don't be misled into thinking this means > weapons of mass destruction. The NIE makes it clear that it does > not.
Nick, We are clearly failing to communicate here. You seem to be saying that "chemical and biological weapons" are not "weapons of mass destruction." If you are, in fact, saying that - then you are using words outside of their common usage. Before proceeding, it would be usefull for you to define what you mean. > Rumsfeld, 9/18/02 > "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not > imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having > nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just > as concerned about the immediate threat > from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons." This quote is completely supported by the NIE. The NIE states that Iraq could assemble a nuclear bomb, quote, "within several months to a year" if it had succeeded in acquiring yellowcake from Niger or some other source. The NIE noted that Iraq had recently attempted to do just that. Additionally, the NIE says that "We judge that Iraq has... biological weapons." (5) > Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 > "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to > the security of our people and the stability of the world than the > regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." This statement is not fully supported by the NIE, but given the evidence in the NIE, I am unable to suggest another terrorist State that posed a greater or more immediate threat to the security of the United States in 2002. > State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 > "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the > materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX > nerve agent." This is supported by the NIE. "Saddam probably has stocked... possibly as much as 500 [metric tons] of [chemical weapons] agents - much of it added in the past year." (6) > "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of > 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents." I cannot find information in the NIE to confirm or deny this quote. > "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a > growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be > used to disperse > chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." This is supported by the NIE. In describing Iraq's UAV program, it says that delivery of chemical and biological weapons on these aircraft "is an inherent capability." (7) It also says that "Iraq maintains... several development programs, included for a [unmanned aerial vehicle] probably intended to deliver biological agents." (7) > Bush - 10/2/02 > "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." > > Bush 10/7/2002 > "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities > at [past nuclear] sites." The NIE does not contain any information to confirm or deny these quotes. > Cheney - 3/16/2003 > "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear > weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear > weapons." This quote was clearly false, and seems to have been a case of mis- speaking. Cheney, I believe, intended to say "nuclear program". Reconstituting nuclear weapons would require Saddam to have had constituted nuclear weapons once previously. I don't think this quote is significant, it seems to me to be an honest mistake. > Bush - 10/3/02 > "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." The NIE neither confirms nor denies this quote. > Bush - 11/23/02 > "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat > posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass > destruction to kill thousands." The NIE neither confirms nor denies the first half of this quote. The second half, of course, is factually true. > White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett - 1/26/03 > Asked, "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests," > replied "Well, of course he is." > > White House spokesman Scott McClellan - 2/10/03 > "This is about imminent threat." > > Rumsfeld - 3/25/03 > "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be > removed." > > Ari Fleisher - 5/7/2003 > Asked "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD's were a direct and > imminent threat to the U.S?"; responded, "Absolutely." The NIE neither confirms nor denies the above quotes. > Now that you have read this, surely you cannot still believe that > the administration's arguments for the were supported by the > intelligence. I can and I do. Of the quotes presented, I found three explicitly supported by the NIE. I found only one explicitly denied - and that seems almost certainly to have been a mis-speak. The remaining 10 appear to either deal with political determinations that seem to have been outside the scope of the NIE, or outside the scope of the intelligence agencies' abilities to make accurate estimates. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
