This is for the people who actually wish to discuss what Tenet really said in his speech. Anyone else can stay in the thread that doesn't give the real story.
We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others where it did not have them, it was trying to develop them.
<snip>
Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate.
They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it.
</snip>
So much for the accusation of pressure from the Whitehouse - no?
Oh, and this part is quite good(it follows from above):
<snip>
How did we reach our conclusions? We had three streams of information; none perfect, but each important.
First, Iraq's history. Everyone knew that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s and 1990s. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people on at least 10 different occasions. He launched missiles against Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
And we couldn't forget that in the early 1990s, we saw that Iraq was just a few years away from a nuclear weapon. This was not a theoretical program. It turned out that we and other intelligence services of the world had significantly underestimated his progress.
And finally, we could not forget that Iraq lied repeatedly about its unconventional weapons.
</snip>
Read the whole thing before twisting "imminent threat" like the other thread did.
CkG
We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others where it did not have them, it was trying to develop them.
<snip>
Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate.
They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it.
</snip>
So much for the accusation of pressure from the Whitehouse - no?
Oh, and this part is quite good(it follows from above):
<snip>
How did we reach our conclusions? We had three streams of information; none perfect, but each important.
First, Iraq's history. Everyone knew that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s and 1990s. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people on at least 10 different occasions. He launched missiles against Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
And we couldn't forget that in the early 1990s, we saw that Iraq was just a few years away from a nuclear weapon. This was not a theoretical program. It turned out that we and other intelligence services of the world had significantly underestimated his progress.
And finally, we could not forget that Iraq lied repeatedly about its unconventional weapons.
</snip>
Read the whole thing before twisting "imminent threat" like the other thread did.
CkG
Facebook
Twitter