Iraq Attack

[andyfox]

-From an AP report today:

A letter to lawmakers from CIA Director George Tenet became a factor in congressional debate.

Tenet suggested a chemical or biological attack by Saddam on U.S. interests did not seem imminent. But he also warned that Saddam might use those weapons for terrorist purposes if provoked by an imminent U.S.-led attack.

Both sides in the debate used the Tenet letter to buttress their own positions. Opponents said it was further reason not to wage a unilateral war on Iraq; supporters said it strengthened the case for giving Bush war authority.

"The fact that people say he has these weapons, he may use these weapons, despite the fact he denies he has them," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Blackmail is something the United States has to consider."

[End of report]

Questions:

-Hasn't Tenet shot himself in the foot? Did the administration want him to say that an attack is not imminent, but might be in the face of an imminent U.S. attack on Iraq? Aren't we giving Saddam ammunition for justification (in his own mind) for a preemptive strike of his own?

-Anyone understand what Fleischer was trying to say? He has already admitted to shooting himself in the foot previously. This seems to be developing into a habit.

[HDPM]

I have no idea what Ari was getting at. He might be saying that Saddam has the best of both worlds right now. He denies WMD's which he obviously has. But then his enemies slow down their plans based on the WMD's. I dunno. I thought the Tenet letter hurt the administration's position, but there are probably several levels to this. There may also be some Bush-Tenet friction that has remained out of the public eye, and properly so. Letters to Congress from the CIA are weird creatures. But I don't think any of this really gives Saddam the ability to justify a preemptive strike. It is clear he has chemical and biological weapons, but he can't wipe out the US with these weapons. He can kill a bunch of Israelis, but if he does that he knows real WMD's will be used. Either Israel or the US can eliminate Iraq within a short time.

[HDPM]

Home > News & Policies > Press Secretary Briefings



For Immediate Release





Q One question, Ari, about -- I know you were asked at the gaggle this
morning about the CIA report related to Saddam Hussein and terrorism.
Related to that, do you think it's -- do you think you can share a little
more with the American people what's on the President's mind with regard
to what is a pretty big question, the unknown related to Saddam Hussein
and his biological and chemical weapons status, whether he might use
that against American troops should a decision be made to go into
combat? What's the policy or the plan to deal with that? It's a pretty scary
prospect, I think, for a lot of people.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, the very fact that you raise a valid issue is
another reason why Saddam Hussein presents such a threat to the world,
because the very fact that people say he has these weapons, he may use
these weapons -- despite the fact that he denies he has them -- suggests
that blackmail is something the United States has to consider. The fact
that he might do this means the United States has to limit what it does to
prevent him from harming people is a fact that Saddam Hussein counts on
to hold the world at abeyance. And that's why the President feels so
strongly it is important to -- for the world to continue to pressure Saddam
Hussein to disarm.

As for the specifics, David, as you know the President said in his speech
that he is basically giving advice to Saddam Hussein's military not to
listen to Saddam Hussein if they are told by Saddam Hussein to use these
weapons. But, of course, the military is trained, the military is ready, the
military is able to deal with such threats. The President hopes it won't
come to that point.

[andyfox]

Clearly Saddam can't strike the U.S. militarily. But how about U.S. military personnel in the Middle East or elsewhere? The U.S. has called for "regime change," requested that the military betray him, the President's spokesperson has called for his assassination, etc. If not some type of preemptive action, it surely gives Saddam, in his mind, reason to continue to develop WMDs, since he needs them to protect Iraq from an invasion which is coming.

Whatever happens, the only thing that would surprise me would be if Saddam survives, and by that I mean, lives. Surely he's a dead man. Hopefully, he doesn't understand this.

[andyfox]

But it sure didn't clear things up for me. I always thought being the press spokesman was a very tough job. Ari's a pretty good one, I think, this quote and the "one bullet" one from last week notwithstanding.

[brad]

"The fact that people say he has these weapons, he may use these weapons, despite the fact he denies he has them," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "Blackmail is something the United States has to consider."
---------------

i think he was trying to say, look, even people who dont agree 100% with us (administration hawks) admit that he does have these weapons. the main point is that even though iraq denies having them, we know it has them. and having them, iraq has the capability to use them.

as far as blackmail, i think he was saying that just because saddam threatens to use them to retaliate doesnt necessarily mean the US shouldnt attack, but that the US should be prepared (read into that that american people need to be prepared to suffer casualties).

p.s. latest i heard on radio (thus no link sorry) is that bush administration was planning on going into iraq even before 911 and everything. (for oil) as in leaked documents and stuff.

"for oil"--well, the war on terrorism (and the cost of 9/11) are very pricey. If we establish a friendly post-Saddam Iraq, we may be able to also use Iraq as a base to launch attacks on terror groups throughout the Mideast thus furthering the process of rooting out terrorism. How much compensation we are entitled to for our costs in this is debatable and hard to determine, but Iraq has cost us plenty already and is going to cost us further. So maybe we are entitled to some oil or money as compensation.

Anyway the more launchpads we can acquire in the Middle East from which to root out terror, the better. If the bastards don't like it then they shouldn't launch attacks or support terrorists. I heartily agree with Kasparov on the overall picture and believe that the only answer to the growing threats is to root them out and undercut their operations by counteroffensive actions. We can't wait for Saddam or terrorists to acquire more WMD, and the war on terror cannot be won on the defensive. Flatten them, arrest them, hunt them wherever they hide and clean them out as thoroughly as possible. Halfway measures will only lead to later and greater reprisals as the remaining elements acquire more destructive technologies. We must also engage in nation-building wherever necessary. Once we have established enough military presence in the Middle East, we must require all regional powers to stop supporting terror or be subject to regime change.

M

[brad]

i told u dick nixon would grow on you /forums/images/icons/smile.gif