JaylieWoW
08-07-2007, 03:19 PM
Ok there have been several of such articles from NewsMax and most of the time I just delete without reading. This same exact rhetoric may have previously been stated, but I found it a bit more alarming than others I've scanned over.
Threat Imminent, NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/172905.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=382F-1)
Former CIA Director: Terrorist Strike Within U.S. Real Threat
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall.
He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it.
"I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was "a real possibility."
Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who told NewsMax in May that al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Terrorists Plotting Now
While Woolsey doubted terrorists would be able to acquire a nuclear explosive device, he warned that terrorists were trying to acquire one, either on the black market from the former Soviet Union, or from Iran or North Korea.
The former CIA director said he favored "really tough sanctions" on Iran for another few months, but if that failed to bring Iran's nuclear weapons program to a halt, the United States had no other choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
He also blasted those in the State Department who believe we can convince the Iranians through negotiations to stop their nuclear programs. "I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that," he said.
Asked what three things we need to do to make America more safe, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection.
Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.
More Pressure on Iran
Next, he said the United States absolutely must step up pressure on Iran, by focusing on Iran's weak economic underbelly and the wellspring of popular discontent with the regime.
In the longer term, Woolsey said it was essentially that the U.S. beef up its military forces and to prepare Americans psychologically and politically for a long war with radical Islamic terrorists.
"I think this is a long war, and we need to treat it as such, and go on a full war-footing," he said.
Woolsey had plenty more to say on the topic of Iran, wrapping up the interview with a list of things needed to keep the United States safe.
Woolsey: I'm still in the camp, but probably only for a few more months, of those who want to try really tough sanctions. And I mean, doing everything we did to the Soviets in the Cold War, everything anybody could think of to undermine their economic system.
Beginning right now, we need to work with those countries that sell refined oil products to them, such as gasoline and diesel, of which they import about 40 percent, to figure out how to get those stopped.
We need broadcasting into Iran in the fashion we used to do on Radio Free Europe during the Cold War into Eastern Europe. I testified about these things last time nearly two years ago to a Senate committee, saying it was getting late. So I don't know if sanctions can work. But I believe there is a chance that really blocking their imports of gasoline and refined diesel would work, by bringing a lot of dissention from minority groups which are nearly half of the country, and from regular citizens, as happened a few weeks ago with Ahmadinejad's gas rationing and increase in gas prices.
So I would still like to see us try that not half-heartedly but vigorously, and not be deterred at all by the threats and the other steps that they will take.
Remember, the Persians invented chess. They're good at it.
Their most valuable piece, their "queen" really, is their nuclear weapons program. Syria rises to the level of a rook, since that's a government. Hamas, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah, they're all pawns.
Whether it was the war with Israel or what, they move their subordinate pieces around in such a way as to protect their queen. Once they have a nuclear weapon, the world changes in some extraordinarily unpleasant ways.
So I believe that for a short time — I don't know if its four to five months, or a year, but it's surely not much longer than that — we can still try tough sanctions, and all the other steps — the right kind of broadcasting, and all the rest. And if that doesn't work, then we're in a situation where we have a choice of letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, or using force. And at that point, with great reluctance, just as I think he was reluctant to advocate it but has done so, I agree with John McCain.
Force is the worst option except for one. And that is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Woolsey: I rarely flat oppose talking to adversaries, but the time you want to do it is when you have an edge over them, not they have an edge over you.
I think that in spite of some recent military successes, the situation in Iraq is particularly difficult with the Maliki government, and with Moqtada Sadr on the whole relatively unconstrained, that they are relatively speaking in a stronger position than I would like to see for us to take any initiative in negotiations.
It might have been different right after Baghdad fell, when clearly they were very worried. That would have been a good time, if one felt there was advantage to negotiations, to talk to them. But I am not confidant that we're not going to have any positive effect from these negotiations.
Woolsey: I don't know how much of an initiative of theirs it was. I've heard stories about it. All I'm saying is that if you're going to negotiate with an adversary, the time to do it is when they are the demandeur, when they are feeling weak and you have just demonstrated strength. And April-May 2003 was such a time.
Woolsey: I don't know and I wouldn't necessarily know. If one was going to use air power exclusively, which I think would be likely and appropriate, it would not necessarily be something that would take a huge amount of lead time. Probably two or three weeks, not two or three months.
Woolsey: That would be a possibility, because it's a constrained sea, and they have lots of small boats that could be used to attack with cruise missiles on them, and they have cruise missiles with a range to potentially be effective against U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, whereas the open ocean — the blue ocean — is our "Briar Patch," as in the Uncle Remus story.
That's where we're at home and where we want to be. Certainly our carrier aircraft have the range along with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s to reach targets in Iran even if they're operating from the open ocean as distinct from the Gulf.
So I'm leaving it up to the admirals and the secretary of defense where and when to put carriers. But my instinct would be that one would be better off in the open ocean with several carriers rather than have some stay in the Gulf. But there are weapons systems and tactics I may not be aware of.
Woolsey: I think you want to listen particularly to what they say to one another. So their threats of destroying Israel, if they can, are as real as "Mein Kampf." Their potential to unleash Hezbollah, which is the world's most professional terrorist organization, much more capable really than al-Qaida or others, could conceivably do a lot of damage in the U.S. as well as various places abroad, including Iraq.
I don't think that's something that should deter us if we have to take action to deter them from potentially having a nuclear weapon.
Woolsey: Well, I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real. It's what Mike McConnell and Mueller have said, and what Chertoff said about his gut feeling.
A lot of people made fun of that, but I think that was a senior government official trying to communicate something without saying here's my evidence, because if he says that, he might have blown the source or method of intelligence. So I think various things that he and McConnell and Mueller and others have been saying all suggest that there's a real possibility — now I don't know which particular terrorist group — of something happening and possibly something very bad, late this summer or this fall.
I think that unless al-Qaida or the Iranians have been able to obtain a loose old Soviet nuke, it's unlikely it could be a nuclear detonation. It might be possible they could get hold of other nuclear material, like cesium or strontium, which is much easier to get hold of, and have something like a dirty bomb. And certainly biological material, like anthrax, is much easier to produce and get hold of than fissionable material.
And we don't know what the North Koreans might be willing to sell to Iran. They have essentially a joint ballistic missile development program; the Shahab and the Taepo Doing/No Dong are essentially the same missile, certainly with the same ranges.
North Korea has several bombs worth of plutonium, but plutonium bombs are harder to construct than simple highly-enriched uranium bombs. We believe that it's possible that North Koreans had a HEU program, and at one point they seemed to admit it. But I don't know of any estimates of what they have or what they had.
So if one's trying to think of a source of a bomb that terrorists, whether al-Qaida or Hezbollah, might be trying to get their hands on today, a nuclear weapon might be extremely difficult, unless they've been able to buy or otherwise obtain one of the old Soviet suitcase nuclear weapons.
Woolsey: Certainly the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small — ours were smaller, I think. But each of us had ADMS that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could try to get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.
Woolsey: I don't know. It's one of the things that we advocated in the committee on the present danger a couple of years ago, that I advocated to the Senate Homeland Security Committee nearly two years ago. I suppose it's because there are disagreements inside the U.S. government. Some people believe we can talk the Iranians out of their nuclear program. I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that.
Woolsey: Well, the thing that we can do in the short order that is most important is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.
The second thing are the steps we talked about with Iran, from broadcasting to cutting off their imports of gasoline and diesel and all the other financial and economic steps. Those would be the two in the really short order that would be on top of my list.
Further down the line, I think we need a substantial increase in our military forces, in our overall national stance of going on a war-footing. I don't think this is just a law enforcement matter.
I think this is a long war, and we need to treat it as such; and go on a full war-footing, from everything to making it easy for John Does to give alerts when they see the flying imams doing their thing, to working closely with allies in the Middle East, I think particularly with Israel. And a wide range of similar steps.
Threat Imminent, NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/172905.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=382F-1)
Former CIA Director: Terrorist Strike Within U.S. Real Threat
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey tells NewsMax in an exclusive interview that terrorists could strike the American homeland — possibly with a weapon of mass destruction — this summer or early fall.
He also warns that if Iran fails to comply with international efforts to stop its nuclear weapons program, the U.S. will have no other option than to bomb it.
"I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real," Woolsey said. A terrorist strike with a dirty bomb or with biological weapons was "a real possibility."
Woolsey's comments echo those of FBI Director Robert Mueller, who told NewsMax in May that al-Qaida's paramount goal is clear: to detonate a nuclear device that would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Terrorists Plotting Now
While Woolsey doubted terrorists would be able to acquire a nuclear explosive device, he warned that terrorists were trying to acquire one, either on the black market from the former Soviet Union, or from Iran or North Korea.
The former CIA director said he favored "really tough sanctions" on Iran for another few months, but if that failed to bring Iran's nuclear weapons program to a halt, the United States had no other choice but to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
He also blasted those in the State Department who believe we can convince the Iranians through negotiations to stop their nuclear programs. "I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that," he said.
Asked what three things we need to do to make America more safe, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection.
Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.
More Pressure on Iran
Next, he said the United States absolutely must step up pressure on Iran, by focusing on Iran's weak economic underbelly and the wellspring of popular discontent with the regime.
In the longer term, Woolsey said it was essentially that the U.S. beef up its military forces and to prepare Americans psychologically and politically for a long war with radical Islamic terrorists.
"I think this is a long war, and we need to treat it as such, and go on a full war-footing," he said.
Woolsey had plenty more to say on the topic of Iran, wrapping up the interview with a list of things needed to keep the United States safe.
Woolsey: I'm still in the camp, but probably only for a few more months, of those who want to try really tough sanctions. And I mean, doing everything we did to the Soviets in the Cold War, everything anybody could think of to undermine their economic system.
Beginning right now, we need to work with those countries that sell refined oil products to them, such as gasoline and diesel, of which they import about 40 percent, to figure out how to get those stopped.
We need broadcasting into Iran in the fashion we used to do on Radio Free Europe during the Cold War into Eastern Europe. I testified about these things last time nearly two years ago to a Senate committee, saying it was getting late. So I don't know if sanctions can work. But I believe there is a chance that really blocking their imports of gasoline and refined diesel would work, by bringing a lot of dissention from minority groups which are nearly half of the country, and from regular citizens, as happened a few weeks ago with Ahmadinejad's gas rationing and increase in gas prices.
So I would still like to see us try that not half-heartedly but vigorously, and not be deterred at all by the threats and the other steps that they will take.
Remember, the Persians invented chess. They're good at it.
Their most valuable piece, their "queen" really, is their nuclear weapons program. Syria rises to the level of a rook, since that's a government. Hamas, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah, they're all pawns.
Whether it was the war with Israel or what, they move their subordinate pieces around in such a way as to protect their queen. Once they have a nuclear weapon, the world changes in some extraordinarily unpleasant ways.
So I believe that for a short time — I don't know if its four to five months, or a year, but it's surely not much longer than that — we can still try tough sanctions, and all the other steps — the right kind of broadcasting, and all the rest. And if that doesn't work, then we're in a situation where we have a choice of letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, or using force. And at that point, with great reluctance, just as I think he was reluctant to advocate it but has done so, I agree with John McCain.
Force is the worst option except for one. And that is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Woolsey: I rarely flat oppose talking to adversaries, but the time you want to do it is when you have an edge over them, not they have an edge over you.
I think that in spite of some recent military successes, the situation in Iraq is particularly difficult with the Maliki government, and with Moqtada Sadr on the whole relatively unconstrained, that they are relatively speaking in a stronger position than I would like to see for us to take any initiative in negotiations.
It might have been different right after Baghdad fell, when clearly they were very worried. That would have been a good time, if one felt there was advantage to negotiations, to talk to them. But I am not confidant that we're not going to have any positive effect from these negotiations.
Woolsey: I don't know how much of an initiative of theirs it was. I've heard stories about it. All I'm saying is that if you're going to negotiate with an adversary, the time to do it is when they are the demandeur, when they are feeling weak and you have just demonstrated strength. And April-May 2003 was such a time.
Woolsey: I don't know and I wouldn't necessarily know. If one was going to use air power exclusively, which I think would be likely and appropriate, it would not necessarily be something that would take a huge amount of lead time. Probably two or three weeks, not two or three months.
Woolsey: That would be a possibility, because it's a constrained sea, and they have lots of small boats that could be used to attack with cruise missiles on them, and they have cruise missiles with a range to potentially be effective against U.S. naval forces in the Gulf, whereas the open ocean — the blue ocean — is our "Briar Patch," as in the Uncle Remus story.
That's where we're at home and where we want to be. Certainly our carrier aircraft have the range along with B-52s and B-1s and B-2s to reach targets in Iran even if they're operating from the open ocean as distinct from the Gulf.
So I'm leaving it up to the admirals and the secretary of defense where and when to put carriers. But my instinct would be that one would be better off in the open ocean with several carriers rather than have some stay in the Gulf. But there are weapons systems and tactics I may not be aware of.
Woolsey: I think you want to listen particularly to what they say to one another. So their threats of destroying Israel, if they can, are as real as "Mein Kampf." Their potential to unleash Hezbollah, which is the world's most professional terrorist organization, much more capable really than al-Qaida or others, could conceivably do a lot of damage in the U.S. as well as various places abroad, including Iraq.
I don't think that's something that should deter us if we have to take action to deter them from potentially having a nuclear weapon.
Woolsey: Well, I think the threat of a serious attack in the next few months is very real. It's what Mike McConnell and Mueller have said, and what Chertoff said about his gut feeling.
A lot of people made fun of that, but I think that was a senior government official trying to communicate something without saying here's my evidence, because if he says that, he might have blown the source or method of intelligence. So I think various things that he and McConnell and Mueller and others have been saying all suggest that there's a real possibility — now I don't know which particular terrorist group — of something happening and possibly something very bad, late this summer or this fall.
I think that unless al-Qaida or the Iranians have been able to obtain a loose old Soviet nuke, it's unlikely it could be a nuclear detonation. It might be possible they could get hold of other nuclear material, like cesium or strontium, which is much easier to get hold of, and have something like a dirty bomb. And certainly biological material, like anthrax, is much easier to produce and get hold of than fissionable material.
And we don't know what the North Koreans might be willing to sell to Iran. They have essentially a joint ballistic missile development program; the Shahab and the Taepo Doing/No Dong are essentially the same missile, certainly with the same ranges.
North Korea has several bombs worth of plutonium, but plutonium bombs are harder to construct than simple highly-enriched uranium bombs. We believe that it's possible that North Koreans had a HEU program, and at one point they seemed to admit it. But I don't know of any estimates of what they have or what they had.
So if one's trying to think of a source of a bomb that terrorists, whether al-Qaida or Hezbollah, might be trying to get their hands on today, a nuclear weapon might be extremely difficult, unless they've been able to buy or otherwise obtain one of the old Soviet suitcase nuclear weapons.
Woolsey: Certainly the Soviets had atomic demolition munitions that were relatively small — ours were smaller, I think. But each of us had ADMS that could easily be carried by one man. That was also true of some of the smaller nuclear artillery shells that existed. So it's not impossible that a terrorist group could try to get hold of a former Soviet relatively small nuclear warhead.
Woolsey: I don't know. It's one of the things that we advocated in the committee on the present danger a couple of years ago, that I advocated to the Senate Homeland Security Committee nearly two years ago. I suppose it's because there are disagreements inside the U.S. government. Some people believe we can talk the Iranians out of their nuclear program. I've never thought there's a chance in hell of that.
Woolsey: Well, the thing that we can do in the short order that is most important is not to cut back on our intelligence capabilities, whether it's through restricting the president's ability to intercept communications or otherwise. We know how to do that reasonably well and don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot by cutting back on it.
The second thing are the steps we talked about with Iran, from broadcasting to cutting off their imports of gasoline and diesel and all the other financial and economic steps. Those would be the two in the really short order that would be on top of my list.
Further down the line, I think we need a substantial increase in our military forces, in our overall national stance of going on a war-footing. I don't think this is just a law enforcement matter.
I think this is a long war, and we need to treat it as such; and go on a full war-footing, from everything to making it easy for John Does to give alerts when they see the flying imams doing their thing, to working closely with allies in the Middle East, I think particularly with Israel. And a wide range of similar steps.