Some of the "anti-war" crowd believed Saddam had WMDs; it was the CIA who said that it was unlikely that he would use them unless he was invaded.
>>>Lots of the anti-war crowd argued it too, as they now conveniently forget.
I don't forget it. But as you well know, the "anti-war" crowd" includes a widely diverse group of people with various arguments, just as the "pro-war" crowd does. Below is a Feb 2003 memo from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity which partly bases its anti-war argument on that, on the that Saddam would use WMDs only if invaded, and the problems that that would cause. It doesn't contain all of the anti-war arguments, but it does remind us somewhat of the flavor of the debate as it existed at that time. I'll begin with a summary of its key points:
1. The key question is whether Iraq's flouting of a UN resolution justifies war.
2. You have dismissed containment as being irrelevant in a post 9/11 world. You should know that no one was particularly fond of containment, but that it has been effective for the last 55 years. And the concept of "material breach" is hardly anything new. [....other examples given] We adduce this example simply to show that, with patient, persistent diplomacy, the worst situations can change over time.
3. You have said that Iraq is a "grave threat to the United States," and many Americans think you believe it to be an imminent threat. [EDIT: my emphasis, as this has become so conversial lately.] Otherwise why would you be sending hundreds of thousands of troops to the Gulf area? In your major speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, you warned that "the risk is simply too great that Saddam Hussein will use instruments of mass death and destruction, or provide them to a terror network."
Your intelligence agencies see it differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists..
4. Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario.
Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially.
5. We recommend you re-read the CIA assessment of last fall that pointed out that "the forces fueling hatred of the US and fueling al Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist." That CIA report cited a Gallup poll last year of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased."
6. No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
I'll put the entire memo in the next post, since SI isn't letting me post it here. |
