Is America Ready for a Woman President?

weenie · September 29, 2007, 8:34pm

Interesteddad - Surely you must concede that I am not the only political junkie who views the Kyl-Lieberman resolution as a pass to Bush to invade Iran.

And speaking of Hillary’s sometimes less than truthful explanations of her voting record, check out this article about how she portrays her vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq:
<a href=“Hillary's War - NYTimes.com”>Hillary's War - NYTimes.com;

It’s sort of long, but quite interesting.

zoosermom · September 29, 2007, 8:36pm

“, and you wouldn’t know it from the Elizabeth Dole model either. But somehow the Hillary Clinton model bothers some Republicans a lot more. Again, we’re are back to simple partisanship”

You’re the one citing Elizabeth Dole. I don’t share your obsession.

interesteddad · September 29, 2007, 9:10pm

weenie:

Political junkies believe lots of things that aren’t true. Part of the problem is that the version of the resolution that Kyl-Lieberman introduced had some military language in it.

The day before the vote, Levin/Clinton/Reed and others refused to vote for it. Lieberman took the military language out of the resolution and added a paragraph with Sec Gates strongly endorsing diplomatic means of dealing with Iran.

That’s when the Democratic Senators agreed to vote for the resolution. The media would do a big service if they had fewer soundbyte characterizations, fewer talking heads, and more direct explanations of what’s really in these bills. No TV network and no major newspapers have published any explanation of why this resolutions was voted for or what the practical implications are (financial tools).

Politically? I view the non-binding resolution as a little something-something for the Jewish vote.

BTW, I’ve never seen anything less than truthful about Clinton’s speeches or press releases. She parses her words very, very carefully.

Her explanation of the AUMF makes perfect sense. It was the threat of invasion that finally forced Sadaam to allow the UN inspectors back in the country a month after the AUMF passed. Clinton said that was her goal and it turned out to be true…it took that threat to get Sadaam off the dime. Coercive diplomacy.

The problem is that Bush did not allow the inspections to play out. He cut them off after Blix had made 700 inspections at 500 sites and was working his way down the list of suspect sites supplied by the CIA – finding nothing. Blix was no wide-eyed peacenik. He was shocked that his team was finding nothing. He fully expected to find WMD programs – mostly because the CIA had not shared their own recent espionage that showed no nuclear programs.

I find the preoccupation with the AUMF vote to be largely a bunch of navel-gazing. The vote was 77 to 23. Every Senator in the Presidential race voted for it except Obama, who was a part-time state legislator at the time and who, after arriving in US Senate, voted for funding the war at every opportunity until this past spring. What is disingenuous is all the “woulda, shoulda, and couldas” politicians are tossing out to duck responsibility for their votes. John Edwards co-sponsored the AUMF vote, for crying out loud. As if saying “I’m sorry” changes the fact that he sponsored the bill. Hell, I’m sorry, too. The 50% of Americans who supported the invasion and have changed their minds are ALL sorrry.

interesteddad · September 29, 2007, 9:31pm

weenie:

Rather than rely on the characterization of reporter Jeff Gerth (unofficial spokesman for the Ken Starr investigation), why don’t you go right to source and read Clinton’s statement when she voted for the AUMF. All of her floor speeches are available.

<a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&[/url]”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&</a>

October 10, 2002

**Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq **

As Delivered 

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. 

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion. 

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right. 

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. 

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam’s revenge. 

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities. 

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets. 

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. 

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. 

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? 

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform. 

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. 

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak. 

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? 

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. 

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal. 

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway. 

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons. 

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations? 

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. 

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition. 

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. 

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want. 

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq. 

President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible. 

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. 

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make – any vote that may lead to war should be hard – but I cast it with conviction. 

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them. 

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose – all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. 

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. 

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am. 

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. 

Thank you, Mr. President.

coureur · September 29, 2007, 9:32pm

I cite Elizabeth Dole to point out an inconsistency - an example of someone who rose to prominence by a route quite similar to Hillary’s yet is widely admired among Republicans for her achievements and success. But Hillary is derided on the same point. Which leads me to conclude that the route by which she rose to prominence is not the real problem with Hillary, despite some Republicans’ insistence that it is.

Actually, I hold Elizabeth Dole in very high regard myself. I really wish she had turned out to be more of a serious presidential contender back in the 2000 election and had won the nomination. It would have saved the country from the failed presidency that followed.

zoosermom · September 29, 2007, 10:07pm

"I cite Elizabeth Dole to point out an inconsistency - an example of someone who rose to prominence by a route quite similar to Hillary’s yet is widely admired among Republicans for her achievements and success. But Hillary is derided on the same point. Which leads me to conclude that the route by which she rose to prominence is not the real problem with Hillary, despite some Republicans’ insistence that it is.

Actually, I hold Elizabeth Dole in very high regard myself. I really wish she had turned out to be more of a serious presidential contender back in the 2000 election and had won the nomination. It would have saved the country from the failed presidency that followed."

I hold Elizabeth Dole in high regard, too, but I don’t think she was ever a serious threat to win the presidency. I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but I think Hillary will be the next president and I don’t think Elizabeth Dole was ever a contender. Again, you can conclude whatever you want, but it won’t make you right with respect to my posts or opinion. As much as I don’t think Elizabeth Dole was a contender, I don’t think Hillary Clinton would be Senator or the next President if her husband hadn’t been President.

mythmom · September 29, 2007, 10:34pm

I know we are all staunchly centered in our own positions, but can’t we not attack each other? I have made friends on CC on both sides of the aisle and those on no side of the aisle, and it’s painful to watch someone be attacked because we don’t agree with him/her.

It’s hard to believe, but those who hold the opposite opinions of ours are as convinced they’re right as we are. And sometimes we even change our minds.

I, too, feel strongly about what is happening in our country, and I have been a political activist since I was 15, but part of my credo is to value people of good will who see things differently from the way I do.

I also don’t always agree with people’s logic, but not everyone agrees with mine. Posters are struggling to express their thoughts; let’s not back them into a wall.

I know I am sounding like a schoolmarm, which is kind of funny given my completely inappropriate persona, but I have been the fox to the hounds on other threads and it is not comfortable.

Hunt · September 29, 2007, 11:34pm

I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I guess I have to say that I think it would be slightly better if the first female President was not the spouse of a former President…just as I think it would be slightly better if the first black President was somebody who grew up in a poor black neighborhood in the U.S. But it’s not Hillary and Obama’s fault that they don’t fit my ideal profile for trailblazers, and I like them, and will vote for either one of them against any Republican candidate. But to some people, even if Hillary becomes the first President, there will always be an asterisk beside her name.

interesteddad · September 30, 2007, 1:43am

Gallup just released breakdowns from a combined sample of their four national polls in August and September (in order to get the total sample size large enough for subgroups to be statisitically meaningful). This may shed some light on which groups of Democratic party voters and leaners are ready for a woman president. The combined sample of Democratic voters and leaners is 1989 respondents with a margin of error of plus/minus 2%. MOE is higher for the smaller subgroups.

<a href=“Gallup News | Nonpartisan Analysis of Critical Global Issues”>Gallup News | Nonpartisan Analysis of Critical Global Issues;

Combined crosstabs from 4 Gallup Polls
August/September 2007

Men
Clinton 41
Obama 27
Edwards 14

Women
Clinton 52
Obama 23
Edwards 13

<hr>

White
Clinton 46
Obama 22
Edwards 16

Black
Clinton 53
Obama 38
Edwards 4

<hr>

18- to 29-year-olds
Clinton 46
Obama 33
Edwards 11

30- to 49-year olds
Clinton 46
Obama 30
Edwards 12

50- to 64-year olds
Clinton 47
Obama 23
Edwards 14

65 years and older
Clinton 51
Obama 14
Edwards 16

<hr>

East
Clinton 53
Obama 22
Edwards 9

Midwest
Clinton 42
Obama 28
Edwards 17

South
Clinton 52
Obama 20
Edwards 16

West
Clinton 41
Obama 31
Edwards 11

<hr>

High school or less
Clinton 56
Obama 18
Edwards 14

Some college
Clinton 44
Obama 30
Edwards 12

College graduate
Clinton 45
Obama 27
Edwards 14

Postgraduate education
Clinton 39
Obama 28
Edwards 13

<hr>

Less than $30,000
Clinton 59
Obama 20
Edwards 11

$30,000 to $75,000
Clinton 45
Obama 27
Edwards 15

$75,000 or more
Clinton 37
Obama 30
Edwards 14

<hr>

Men 18-49
Clinton 39
Obama 34
Edwards 14

Men 50+
Clinton 44
Obama 20
Edwards 14

Women 18-49
Clinton 51
Obama 29
Edwards 10

Women 50+
Clinton 53
Obama 18
Edwards 15

<hr>

Democrats
Clinton 50
Obama 25
Edwards 12

Democratic-leaning independents
Clinton 42
Obama 25
Edwards 15

<hr>

Conservative
Clinton 53
Obama 17
Edwards 15

Moderate
Clinton 46
Obama 25
Edwards 14

Liberal
Clinton 46
Obama 29
Edwards 11

1sokkermom · September 30, 2007, 8:53am

^ Therefore, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to vote for Clinton. ;)

weenie · September 30, 2007, 9:07am

Interesteddad: My point is that it certainly appears that Clinton did not read the intelligence report. (And that is obvious by her speech “explaining” her vote.) Other senators who voted against the authorization did read it, but they aren’t running for president. It bothers me that she can’t admit she didn’t read it, and that she made a mistake on the vote. And what do you make of her “no” vote on the Levin amendment?

zoosermom · September 30, 2007, 10:18am

“But to some people, even if Hillary becomes the first President, there will always be an asterisk beside her name.”
Thank you for explaining that so clearly. You’re much more articulate than I am because that’s exactly what I meant.

cartera45 · September 30, 2007, 11:23am

Then there would be a lot of elected officials, including presidents, with asterisks, unless the asterisks only apply to spouses. I think for most (ZM excluded because she said it would bother her no matter who it is) that issues regarding nepotism or election by association matter little unless those issues helped elect a man or woman from the “other party.” I would not have put an asterisk by Robert Kennedy’s name had he lived to be elected, but if Ron Reagan Jr. were a Republican and ran, I’m sure I’d complain.

weenie · September 30, 2007, 11:35am

The biggest asterisk of all - GWB*

ucsd_ucla_dad · September 30, 2007, 11:43am

I’d have no problem with Ron Reagan Jr. running but Hillary’s another matter… :)

Actually, even though the gut feel might be to not like the idea of fellow family members running for similar governmental positions, it’s inevitable. Just as kids of doctors might be more likely to pursue that field, ditto with lawyers, teachers, plumbers, contractors, engineers, etc., I’m sure the same is true with politicians as well. It’s what they grew up with and are familiar with.

A huge part of success in politics is about name recognition as evidenced by the millions of dollars spent on it and the awful campaign signs scattered around neighborhoods with nothing other than a politician’s name on them, and a son, daughter, wife, husband, cousin, etc. already has a large jump start in this regard. On top of this, if they’ve been along for the ride already such as Hillary has, they already have a lot of contacts in the political arena that a newcomer just wouldn’t have.

So, I think it’s best to just understand that phenomenon will occur and look past it to the individual candidate themself. It might be harder than some think. How many voters for Hillary voted for her and will vote for her for president because they like Bill? How many voters voted for GW because they liked his father? This is probably the biggest concern - that people won’t support the candidate on their own merits and track record but rather, the ‘family’s’.

interesteddad · September 30, 2007, 11:46am

weenie:

Read some of the books that are coming out detailing the preparation of the National Intelligence Estimate. It was a cooked document, a sales brochure. It omitted all of the contrary evidence the CIA and other intelligence services had collected. The NIE was the written version of the false speech that Colin Powell delivered at the UN.

Remember, we have the benefit of hindsight. We know that no WMD or nuke programs were found. That was not the prevailing narrative of the CIA in 2002. Quite the contrary.

interesteddad · September 30, 2007, 11:57am

Of course. PhDs are the most “liberal” voters in the country. Clinton is viewed as far too centrist to a PhD.

Actually, I think income is probably the more direct determining factor. According to Mark Penn, by way of the Atlantic Monthly’s blog review of his book:

A “funny thing has happened to the American electorate: it’s flipped upside down. America’s elite … have become less interested in America’s economic and strategic challenges than they are in the candidate’s personalities.” The elites say that it’s because the lower orders of society don’t understand the issues, they decide based on personality, so it’s only natural for the elites to follow. (Penn has polling data to back this up.) Turns out, there’s a sliding scale. When voters reach a certain income level – around $100,000 – a plurality focuses on character and personality. Under $100,000, Penn found that a majority focus on issues. 

It’s tempting to read something about Barack Obama’s fundraising successes or appeals to elite Democrats in here, but Penn’s book was completed well before he wrote these words: “So between the 527-underwriting Mega-Donors and the increasingly powerful Elite Donors [those couples earning more than $300K a year who can easily max out to candidates], we have a new class of givers playing an increasingly important role in politics – and statistical proof that their heads are nowhere near the voters.'”

This is why many people, at a place like College Confidential, living in an affluent suburb, can quite truthfully say that they don’t know anyone voting for Clinton, who is a very issues-oriented campaigner.

mafool · September 30, 2007, 12:52pm

Thank you, mythmm for post 107.

weenie · September 30, 2007, 2:44pm

In my “affluent suburb” (which isn’t really all that affluent, but anyway) I don’t know anyone voting for Hillary because they are all Republicans. (It’s rather slim pickins’ for Dems on primary day.) Oh, and my more diverse crowd of friends at work won’t vote for her because she is too conservative. I don’t see a consensus among them though. Some like Obama, some Edwards.

Anyway, not having read the intelligence report myself (thank God), my understanding of it is that the original complete document cast quite a few serious doubts on the WMD/Al Qaeda things, where as the “summary” that most Senators read was highly picked over.

interesteddad · September 30, 2007, 3:19pm

No. The NIE was a total whitewash. It completely played down, or omitted entirely, the counter arguments. People who were involved in the preparation of the NIE have acknowledged that it was prepared as a sales document. No mention that “Curveball” was a sole source and had been discredited by the Germans. No mention that the Niger uranium story was a fraud. No mention that the aluminum tubes were an exact match for tubes Iraq had been buying for a decade to build their own copy of an Italian rocket launcher. No mention of the aggressive use of Iraqi American family members of known Iraqi nuclear scientists to travel to Iraq in 2002, all of whom came back and reported their scientist relatives laughed at the notion of a nuclear program and desperately sought asylum in the US.

Here’s a link to the declassified portions:

<a href=“http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html[/url]”>http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html</a>

We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)
We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq’s WMD
efforts, owing to Baghdad’s vigorous denial and deception
efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war starkly demonstrate
the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information.
We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq’s
WJMD programs.
Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its
chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and
invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of
most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program.
Iraq’s growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases
Baghdad’s capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual
earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from
$580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year.
Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons
facilities damaged during

[[Page E1546]]

<pre><code> Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and
biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian
production.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its
ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to
deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear
weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent
on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started
reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM
inspectors departed–December 1998.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon
depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile
material.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad
it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a
year.
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not
be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to
inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities
to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in
procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.
Most agencies believe that Saddam’s personal interest in
and Iraq’s aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength
aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors–as well as Iraq’s
attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines,
and machine tools–provide compelling evidence that Saddam is
reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad’s
nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of
the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes
probably are not part of the program.)
Iraq’s efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of
weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect
nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is
underway.
All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on
tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable
of producing approximately two weapons’ worth of highly
enriched uranium per year.
In a much less likely scenario, Bagbdad could make enough
fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it
obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the
other materials and technological expertise necessary to
build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities.
We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of
mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosari), and VX; its capability
probably is more limited now than it was at the time of the
Gulf war, although VX production and agent storage life
probably have been improved.
An array of clandestine reporting reveals that Baghdad has
procured covertly the types and quantities of chemicals and
equipment sufficient to allow limited CW agent production
hidden within Iraq’s legitimate chemical industry.

</code></pre>

The dynamics of how the CIA and the entire US government came to be wrong on Sadaam Hussein is quite complex. It starts with the fact that Hussein was months away from having a nuclear weapon before Gulf War I, something that caught the CIA by TOTAL surprise. Institutionally, the CIA didn’t want to make the same mistake.

Hans Blix summed it up best. He said he was sure Iraq had WMD programs and was shocked to find nothing when his inspection team return. “Saddaam hung a “BEWARE OF DOG” sign for his neighbors to see, when he didn’t have a dog.”

Is America Ready for a Woman President?

CONNECT WITH US