January 28, 2003
SADDAM, THIS IS JACQUES, THEY'RE HEADED TO SITE 7:
U.S. to Make Iraq Intelligence Public: Evidence of Weapons Concealment to Be Shared in Effort to Boost Support for War (Bob Woodward, January 28, 2003, Washington Post)The Bush administration has assembled what it believes to be significant intelligence showing that Iraq has been actively moving and concealing banned weapons systems and related equipment from United Nations inspectors, according to informed sources. [...]The concealment efforts have often taken place days or hours ahead of visits by U.N. inspection teams, which have been operating in Iraq during the past two months, according to these accounts. In many cases, the United States has what one source called "compelling" intelligence that is "unambiguous" in proving that Iraq is hiding banned weapons.
Speaking to reporters yesterday, Powell said that U.N. inspectors have picked up similar indications of Iraqi concealment and that the United States supported the inspectors' claims. "The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says," he said. "Well, we certainly corroborate all of that, but this is information from the inspectors."
Administration officials have said for weeks that the United States has intelligence demonstrating that Iraq maintains banned weapons programs. But they have said they could not disclose the information because doing so would jeopardize U.S. intelligence-collection methods or military operations against possible weapon storage sites in the event of war. [...]
A senior State Department official said the information the administration plans to release will show what the Iraqis are "doing, what they're not doing, how they're deceiving."
"We will lay out the case that we can, and we will leave it to others to judge," the official said. "When you listen to it, it should be disturbing to those people who listen objectively. To those who have made up their minds and want to duck their heads in the sand, it will pass right over them."
Spokesmen for the White House and U.S. intelligence agencies declined to comment.
In one recent example of what officials described as Iraqi obstruction, a ranking Iraqi official issued a warning that U.N. inspectors were planning a visit and directed those at the site to conceal specific prohibited weapons. In another, an Iraqi official directed scientists and others involved in research or production of chemical and biological weapons to conceal their files and papers from the inspectors.
Unfortunately, the UN is such a sieve--with the French in particular leaking information to Saddam so he can hide stuff before inspectors get there--that we can only release truly valuable evidence just before we go to war. It would be irresponsible to give Saddam time to move weapons we know about for sure when we could instead wait a couple weeks and announce that we know where they are with a barrage of cruise missiles. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 28, 2003 9:04 AM
There has been speculation that the French (and Germans) have been selling weapons to Iraq and have been involved in other not allowed activities with Iraq.
This is bad enough, but if there is evidence that France tipped off Iraq about weapons inspectors and UN actions then I don't see how the US-France relationship can stand.
AWW:
The inspectors from the prior regime, who are free to talk now, like David Kay, openly say that the French would inform Saddam of where the next inspection was going to be.
Since 20% of Hans Blix's team are Iraqi agents, I doubt the Iraqis need the French for tip-offs.
If this war doesn't start Jan. 29, I'll be sorely disappointed. But I think it will.
PJ -
Even so the French should be pounded on.
As for timetable there are many on the right who wanted the war to start in March and don't know why its taking so long. Other opine that it is better to take longer and do it right than do it quickly but badly. Given some negative scenarios (i.e. Syria jumps in, Israel gets pulled in, Iran falls apart) lets hope the time was taken to prepare for all scenarios.
End of January/early February seems right although some think it may slip to late Feb due to logistical reasons. The UN report, the SOTU, Blair's visit to DC on the 30th, information being released against Iraq now all point to a PR buildup which I don't think Bush would squander by waiting extra time.
Based on the factors AWW ticks off, I think we're looking at 2-3 weeks from today, so I'm going with Valentine's Day as my prediction.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 28, 2003 12:44 PMIf they aren't inspecting in Jordan, and maybe Syria, they aren't going to find some good stuff.
Posted by: Harry at January 28, 2003 1:58 PMThere's been a publicity barrage for the last few days claiming a war start of late February. I hope this is disinformation, in pursuit of at least a little tactical surprise. If we wait for the next new moon (Feb 1 and then Feb 28), there will be no surprise at all, that's the last new moon with acceptable weather. The coalition is not going to get any more together than it is today, and any PR buildup would cost more on war effectiveness, intelligence capabilities, and loyalty from Mideast allies than it would gain in US and European popular support. Remember, our Mideast allies don't want a long debate on the subject, that only raises the uncomfortable question for them of where they stand - and they don't want to have to make public stands.
Posted by: pj at January 28, 2003 4:01 PMWhoa, Mr. Judd--I'm no supporter of the Froggies, and maybe I missed something, but do you have any hard evidence to back up that assertion about France helping out Iraq? That's a pretty serious charge.
Again, we all hate the French here, so don't think I'm sympathesizing with them, but if you've got more on that subject, post it.
For comments on how French, German and Russian companies have been aiding and investing in Iraq, take a look at the Letters section of Andrew Sullivan's blog.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 30, 2003 7:24 AM