• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could attacking Iraq provoke the WMD transfer we originally dreaded?

Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat

Maybe we can't find the WMD because Saddam transferred them to al Qaeda because we invaded? Is it possible that we're in reality less safe than we were before?

...

But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . 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," one key judgment of the estimate said.

It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

The declassified sections of the NIE were offered by the White House to rebut allegations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The result, however, could be to raise more questions about whether the administration misrepresented the judgments of the intelligence services on another basis for going to war: the threat posed by Hussein as a source of weapons for terrorists.

...

 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat

Maybe we can't find the WMD because Saddam transferred them to al Qaeda because we invaded? Is it possible that we're in reality less safe than we were before?

...

But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . 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," one key judgment of the estimate said.

It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

The declassified sections of the NIE were offered by the White House to rebut allegations that the administration had twisted prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The result, however, could be to raise more questions about whether the administration misrepresented the judgments of the intelligence services on another basis for going to war: the threat posed by Hussein as a source of weapons for terrorists.

...


That would not be possible as Iraq had no WMD or connections with Al Queda...or do you just want to play boths side of the fence....
 
I don't think anyone can claim wholeheartedly that Iraq *certainly* did not have WMD or ties to al Qaeda. I think the main sticking point with most folks who were/are against our war was that Bush failed to successfully prove those possessions and connections.

It's not playing both sides of the fence to suggest that while Bush didn't sufficiently prove his claims about WMD/al Qaeda, they are quite possible, and because they are you must look into the consequences of a war...
 
Originally posted by: konichiwa
I don't think anyone can claim wholeheartedly that Iraq *certainly* did not have WMD or ties to al Qaeda. I think the main sticking point with most folks who were/are against our war was that Bush failed to successfully prove those possessions and connections.

It's not playing both sides of the fence to suggest that while Bush didn't sufficiently prove his claims about WMD/al Qaeda, they are quite possible, and because they are you must look into the consequences of a war...

There are more than handfull of folks on this board that will claim that Iraq had no WMD and no ties of any kind to al qaeda.
 
Back
Top