10/6    Key findings on Iraq WMDs released today:
      http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
        Summary:  No WMDs, no real WMD programs, no mention of Syria,
        but all the intent in the world to make WMDs after inspectors left to
        protect it from Iran based on interviews w/ Saddam while in the pokey.
        No irrefutable written evidence of this intent.
        I.e., if Dubya did not attack, Blix would have found nothing,
        inspectors would leave, Iraq would have sanctions lifted, Saddam would
                                \_ inspections would have continued, nice try
        be a happy camper and *maybe* actually do restart WMD programs.
        The U.S. would get real evidence that Iraq had WMDs, inspectors would
        be requested, Saddam says no, we get a resolution to attack based on a
        *real* WMD / WMD-program presentation to the UN, and if the CIA did
        its job we go in when the capability is in its infant stages.
        Instead ... Iran and North Korea are having a ball doing whatever the
        hell they want with nuclear while the U.S. is overstretched -- while
        the U.S. holds no credible threat to mounting an preemptive military
        campaign on these two countries.  Iran and North Korea view the U.S.
        as their principal threat, and having nukes deter this threat very
        effectively.
        Here, I even have text Kerry could use:
        "But didn't your vice president say that the number one threat today
        was nuclear?  First, let's grant that the U.S. has had important
        successes in Libya and Pakistan, which were resolved with diplomacy
        by the way.  But a more important question is:  Aren't we so
        overstretched -- of the 10 Army divisions that the United States
        has, nine are in Iraq or preparing to transfer there -- that Iran
        and North Korea can now wave the nuclear card at us with impunity?
        That is, the U.S. is so *overstretched* that it does not have a
        credible threat for a military campaign against either of these two
        countries, that they have been able to proceed with their nuclear
        programs without fear of consequences?  That the invasion of Iraq for
        WMDs and WMD programs that weren't there, and the loss of important
        allies from this decision -- and the lack of effective military
        planning that has led us to be bogged down there now for a year and
        counting -- has left the U.S. *more* in danger from nuclear attack?"
        (Wow, do I sound like kinney now?)
                              \_ No -- you're actually kind of coherent.
        \_ post it to dailykos.
           \_ "The requested method POST is not allowed for the URL /."
              (when trying to create a new account)
        \_ I think this is what "payback" from the CIA looks like.
           \_ Not really.  David Kay and Duelfer just wanted to get it right
              this time.  No lack of connecting the dots like for 9/11.
              No conclusions not supported by the intelligence like for Iraq.
        \_ there is no risk of iran developing nuclear plants of any kind.
           as soon as it does, israel will bomb the crap out of the plan,
           just like it did before.
           \_ I think Iran doesn't need a nuclear plant to develop the bomb.
              All they need is weapons-grade uranium.  They know how to make
              uranium hexafluoride gas; they have the centrifuges to make
              weapons-grade uranium.  Israel would need to bomb enough
              centrifuges, and know where they were.  If I were Iran, and of
              course I would want the bomb if I could, I would construct
              multiple centrifuge systems, building each system underneath a
              large city center to guarantee great loss of innocent life if
              Israel bombed.  This is just a technical/tactical post, not
              really political.