October 2, 2002: CIA says Saddam unlikely to attack

[cynatnite]

Despite all the rhetoric out of the bush administration in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the CIA said in a closed hearing in front of the intelligence committee on Oct. 2, 2002...

"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."


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA said the probability of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein initiating an attack without provocation on the United States in the foreseeable future was "very low," according to a letter made public on Tuesday.

But if he was attacked, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with biological or chemical weapons was "pretty high."

The letter, dated Oct. 7, was signed by Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin on behalf of CIA Director George Tenet and sent to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham in response to the Florida Democrat requesting the CIA declassify parts of its secret assessment on Iraq.

http://www.representativepress.org/IraqAttack.html

*********

October 7th bush gave a speech in Cincinatti outlining the so-called threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

*********

I ran across this while hunting up articles dating back to 2003 saying the US is less safe as a direct result of the Iraq invasion. The point is they were told by the CIA that Saddam attacking was low. While I know the CIA isn't exactly high on the list of many DUer's this is another example of how they've been used as scapegoats for an administration that cherry-picked the information provided to them by the CIA.

This is an old subject, but I was startled to find this dated less than three months after the July meeting whose notes are now known as the Downing Street Memo.

October 2nd they were told by the CIA that Saddam attacking was very low and five days later bush is giving speeches at the 'grave' threat.

It still pisses me off :grr:

[MnFats]

1. the sickening revelations continue to pile up....

...this bunch really, really needs to be impeached...

[MadMaddie]

2. So it proves they lied....does this type of lying constitute

Treason?

[Old and In the Way]

3. I sure would like DU to do some serious datamining.....

The archives contain a vertivble treasure trove of information like this. Anything with Iraq in the subject/message from 6/02 through 3/03 would be most interesting. I think the consensus here was that this was a complete folly, for all the reasons it turned out to be. (Lies/quagmire/incompetence/the politics/the reaction of the Iraqi's to US occupation)...this was all pretty much expected here.

[H2O Man]

4. Right.

Before 9/11, both Powell and Rice had stated in public that Saddam was defanged. Saddam was not the one who changed after that.