Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (86837)	11/17/2004 10:14:15 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 793549

Now show me the CIA analysts who said BEFOREHAND that there was little evidence of Saddam's WMD. Just a few days ago I was looking at an old copy of the Economist, from the prewar days. The lead article was on the spat between CIA and the Wolfowitz/Feith faction at DOD. Not specifically over the presence or absence of WMD, but on the level of development and quantities. The CIA complaint was that DOD was picking up sources that CIA had already rejected as unreliable, nad funneling their "information" to the administration, which was then asking why the CIA had missed out on this "valuable" (i.e. convenient) information. The debate was less over whether there were or weren't WMD, but on the level of development of the programs and the degree of threat they posed. Most sources agreed that it was probable that Saddam retained at least the very primitive WMD capability already displayed, but there was considerable disagreement on the question of what threat this posed to the US. The debate got a fair amount of attention then, though it seems well forgotten now.