CIA Letter to the Senate
on Baghdad's Intentions

CIA Says Iraq Unlikely to Strike U.S. Unless Provoked

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . 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.


An increadible 2 CD set by Noam Chomsky. This is something you must hear if you want to understand what the agression against Iraq is about (also includes discusion of economic system and human rights) It includes a comprehensive analysis of the economic sanctions against Iraq and explains why the U.S. wants to control Iraq. Chomsky takes the major points of State Department rhetoric and systematically and brilliantly, destroys them all. He explains why excuses such as, "Saddam is a threat to his neighbors", "he's building chemical and biological weapons", "he oppresses the Kurdish and Shiite populations of Iraq", etc., are hardly sufficient to explain the sanctions, the inspections teams, and the relentless bombings and the planned war.
CIA Letter to Senate on Baghdad's Intentions

The New York Times
October 9, 2002

Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, by George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, about decisions to declassify material related to the debate about Iraq:

In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate's forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.

As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility of hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.

These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam's decision-making regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested:

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.

Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W..

Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue:

Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . 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.

Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?

Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.

In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications — "in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now" — were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using W.M.D. for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used W.M.D., it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.

Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:

¶Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda. suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

© 2002 The New York Times Company


CIA Says Iraq Unlikely to Strike U.S. Unless Provoked
Wed Oct 9, 5:16 AM ET  --  Reuters

By Tabassum Zakaria

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.

The Senate is debating how much authority to give President Bush in a war powers resolution, and some Democrats complained that the CIA was not providing intelligence that contradicted the Bush administration's views on Iraq.

Bush, in a televised speech on Monday night, sought to rally public support around his position that Iraq poses a danger to the United States because of its biological and chemical weapons and ties to terrorists.

The CIA assessment in the letter to Graham said Iraq appeared to have stopped short of terrorist attacks against the United States.

'DRAWING A LINE'

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States," the CIA said.

"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions," the letter said.

Tenet, in a statement, said there was "no inconsistency" between the CIA's view of Saddam's growing threat and the view expressed in the president's speech.

"Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack at this moment are low -- in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD -- there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build," Tenet said.

The letter declassified dialogue from a closed Oct. 2 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, in which a senior intelligence witness was asked what Saddam would do if he did not feel threatened.

"My judgement 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," the witness said.

In response to a U.S. attack, the likelihood that Saddam would respond with chemical or biological weapons was "pretty high," the intelligence witness said.


CIA Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror

by Alison Mitchell and Carl Hulse

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 - The Bush administration pushed Congress today for a broad vote to authorize the president to use force against Iraq.

But a new element was injected into the debate by a C.I.A. assessment that Saddam Hussein, while now stopping short of an attack, could become "much less constrained" if faced with an American-led force.

The judgment was contained in a letter signed by the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, on behalf of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence. It was alluded to in a hearing of a Congressional panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks and then released tonight, after the House opened its debate on Iraq.

The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States.

"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

The letter dated Oct. 7 also declassified an exchange from a closed Congressional hearing on Oct. 2 in which a senior intelligence official judged the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's initiating an attack in the foreseeable future as "low."

Mr. Tenet said tonight that "there is no inconsistency" between the C.I.A. views in the letter and those of the president. He emphasized the Iraqi leader's use of such weapons against his own citizens.

Senior administration officials insisted that the letter did not contradict President Bush's assertions on the imminent threat posed by Mr. Hussein. They pointed to another section of the letter that noted that the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's using weapons of mass destruction "for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise, grows as his arsenal builds."

The letter also cited credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq has provided members of the terrorist group with training in the areas of poisons, gases and bomb making.

One lawmaker on the intelligence committee, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, cited the letter today as he registered his opposition to granting the president broad authority to use force unilaterally. "I'm not convinced regarding a clear and present threat," he said in Senate debate.

Even so, his was a minority sentiment a day after President Bush told the nation that Iraq "stands alone" as a threat, armed with weapons of mass destruction controlled by a "murderous tyrant."

Bipartisan approval of a resolution on force that President Bush negotiated with Congressional leaders is now considered all but certain. But administration officials worked to expand their support so that the president would be able to say that his backing was resounding when the final votes are taken.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told Republican Senators at a closed-door caucus that Congressional unity would help him press his case at the United Nations for a tough new resolution holding Iraq to account for its violations of a raft of past United Nations resolutions.

"What I'm interested in seeing is solid, overwhelming support as a signal of American determination," Mr. Powell, flanked by Democrats and Republicans, told reporters.

Despite the administration's push there were strongholds of dissent. A fervent minority of determined lawmakers in both House and Senate argued in debate that it was a mistake to give President Bush such broad authority for force.

Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, also served notice that he would use all the procedural weapons at his disposal to slow debate - a move that could push off a final Senate vote until next week.

Others also made their opposition known. Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent whose change of parties gave the Democrats control of the Senate last year, said today that he could not open the door to a unilateral military incursion by the United States.

"I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our nation internationally and stir up greater hatred of America," he said.

In the House, the sharp divide among Democrats was on plain view, even as most Republicans who spoke supported the president. And Democratic opponents of unilateral action predicted that more than 100 members of Congress would vote against the war resolution.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened 21 hours of formal House debate, saying that before the Sept. 11 attacks Americans had lived in "splendid isolation," but that the nation now realized it could be touched by those in countries that formerly seemed distant.

"Is there a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda?" asked Mr. Hastert, who sought to bring the issue directly to lawmakers, saying the Capitol itself had been a Sept. 11 target. "The president thinks so and based on what I have seen, I think so also."

Democrats took pains to stress that any differences were matters of conscience. "There is no party position on an issue of this gravity," said Representative Martin Frost, Democrat of Texas and party caucus chairman, who supports the resolution.

Still, many House Democrats criticized the reach of the current resolution and the broad latitude it would give the president. "War with Iraq will not bring peace to the Middle East," said Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia. "War is easy. But peace is hard. Peace is right, and it is just and it is true."

Representative David E. Bonior, a Michigan Democrat who was one of three lawmakers who traveled recently to Iraq, asked, "By going it alone, what signal do we issue by tossing aside diplomacy?"

Other Democrats clashed with Republicans over the extent of American cooperation with Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, saying previous administrations had provided the Iraqi leader with the foundation of his biological weapons program.

"Sure he has biological weapons," said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York. "We gave them to him."

Published on Wednesday, October 9, 2002 by the New York Times
Copyright The New York Times Company