WP: Bush to make Iraq Intelligence Public

[Zen-like Todd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52135-2003Jan27.html

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.

After a lengthy debate over what and how much of the intelligence to disclose, President Bush and his national security advisers have decided to declassify some of the information and make it public, perhaps as early as next week, in an effort to garner more domestic and international support for confronting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with military force, officials said.

"The United States possesses several pieces of information which come from the work of our intelligence that show Iraq maintains prohibited weapons," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview published yesterday in an Italian newspaper. "Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material."

The information was gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies from what officials characterized as an array of sources and methods. The administration believes it shows that senior Iraqi officials and military officers who report to members of Hussein's inner circle have personally directed the movement and camouflage of the weapons or have knowledge of the operations, the sources said.

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.

The administration's decision to release even partial accounts of what it believes it has learned would clearly be designed to bolster the U.S. case in the U.N. Security Council, where leading members oppose an early decision to go to war, and among many Americans, who recent polls suggest are not convinced of the need for an immediate military confrontation. Democrats on Capitol Hill recently have increased calls on the administration to make public what it knows.

Despite the building pressure on the United States to support its claims about Iraqi behavior, sources said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not traced or located a large cache of prohibited weapons or ingredients used in the making of chemical or biological weapons. They said the U.S. government still lacks a "smoking gun" -- the kind of definitive evidence that would prove that Iraq still has chemical or biological weapons, or a nuclear weapons development program.

On top of that, what little intelligence the administration has released about Iraq has been challenged by U.N. officials and some Security Council members. In particular, these critics cite Bush's allegation, made to the U.N. General Assembly in September, that Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. After investigating the claim, U.N. inspectors concluded the tubes likely were never meant for enriching uranium but rather were intended as components for ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding consistent with Iraqi explanations.

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.

In other cases, the sources said, the intelligence is more circumstantial. These would include photographs of intense activity around a building believed to be involved in the manufacture or storage of prohibited weapons.

Stephen J. Hadley, Bush's deputy national security adviser, heads a small task force that is trying to sort through the intelligence and recommend what to declassify. But officials said the process is complicated because revealing the exact intelligence could compromise sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would be needed in the confrontation with Iraq, particularly if it leads to war.

Contingency planning for a possible war with Iraq anticipates weeks of bombing and a ground invasion force of more than 100,000. The beginning of such a military operation would be precisely when timely intelligence would be most valuable to the U.S. military. As a result, U.S. intelligence agencies have been reluctant to jeopardize their sources and methods of collecting information in Iraq.

[@DCGoldPants]

is this a good idea? I'm not a fan of the president to be honest. He seems like he doesn't understand what he's saying too often for me. However, if he presented this info to the security groups of the UN and they publically agreed with the info without sharing it. Then I would be down with whatever plan of attack he has. Making this info public seems risky unless 5 min after he puts it out there....we attack.

[Kilmer17]

The Democrats need a good dose of shut the f@%k up. This will provide that.

I think most Americans feel the way you do, but that wont stop Pelosi and Daschle from hitting their talking points ad nauseum.

[codeorama]

If the Dems were presented with evidence that Iraq is a real threat to the US and they went out and still opposed action, when something happens, they would look like total Jacka$$es. It would effect their re-election. I remember back when Clinton ordered the air strikes on Milosovich, he had republican military leaders that were in agreement with his decision. They could have easily opposed him just because of the party issue, but they didn't.

Of course, going to war is a totally bigger and different issue than air strikes, but regardless of what party you are in, if you are shown evidance that cannot be looked away from, you are not going to oppose war.

I think that is the only thing that this issue is lacking.

If I see the GOP and Dems agreeing on war...I will be scared, because that's when we are in danger.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The Democrats need a good dose of shut the f@%k up. This will provide that.

I think most Americans feel the way you do, but that wont stop Pelosi and Daschle from hitting their talking points ad nauseum.

so so bitter.

My question is this. What if this evidence is weak and not enough? Then should they still shut up?

[Kilmer17]

The key word in your statement is "real".

If the Dems get to determine that, then nothing short of another 9/11 will be enough evidence.

Iraq has broken ceasefire agreements. IT has failed to live up to the UN resolutions. It has Chemical weapons. What more do the Dems want?

[Kilmer17]

So so stupid Bandit Bufford.

What more do you lefty libs want for evidence?

I can hear Pelosi et al now.

"well Saddam has a nuke, but it's not a bad one" "What proof do we have that he would use it on us?"

Why dont you simply admit that you and the Dems/Left/Liberals etc dont care about the safety of our country more than you care about political gain.

[@DCGoldPants]

they don't care? that was dumb. They care more about things you think they shouldn't care about. There is a difference. Political gain also means going to war to support your dropping approval ratings.

I think Saddam need to be taken out yesterday.....a decade ago when they stopped short.

Stop acting like I'm a stupid Democrat..........just because I don't support your idiot doesn't mean I like the other idiot that lost.

[Art]

I think this is a very bad idea. We all know full well that Iraq has weapons they aren't allowed to have. We should not be presenting any type of evidence to the public that could even hint at exposing our assets and intelligence gathering techniques. My guess is the "evidence" will be heavily scrubbed and essentially be unmoving.

You can't trump the knowledge each and every one of us has about Iraq's weapon program with scrubbed down data to appease the public and Dems on the Hill who aren't at the intelligence briefings.

[@DCGoldPants]

thank you Art. That is what I was asking!

Seems like you have this evidence and its for sure. Then you move on it.

[Kilmer17]

The problem is, the left will not state what they want. All they say is what Bush and ther GOP wants is wrong.

Again with the name calling? Talk about bitter.

So set the boundries as to what is "enough" or not "weak" evidence. Otherwise you keep the ability to say ANYTHING is not enough or weak.

Are the Chemical warheads not enough?

Is Iraqs refusal to adhere to the ceasefire agreements not enough?

Is their refusal to adhere to the UN resolutions not enough?

Ive asked these 3 questions numerous times and not one of the liberals/leftist/Democrats or whatever you are has offered a response.

Instead you resort to the old Dem playbook of denial and name calling.

[fansince62]

just a sidebar to the approval ratings. i recall how the press reported during the Clinton impeachment hearings that the 45-54% approval ratings reflected the support of the majority of Americans for the President and the notion that his sexual harassment activities were private matters. use the same numbers for Bush and it reflects majority disapproval for his Iraq plans and foreign policy generally.

[tex]

Once we have made sure it can be done safely, I think that in the next week or soon after we can make public a good part of this material.

That probably means the intelligence gatherers are being extracted from country and upon completion the data will be released.

There is not a nickels worth of difference between the republicans and democrats. Both parties are on the same bus they're just riding in different seats.

[The Evil Genius]

So when do we go after North Korea, Pakistan, & India?

Throw in Israel too - they haven't signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and yet they harvest nuclear weapons (illegally according to the treaty). They just dont hide them like the Iraqi's do.

Consistency is what the US will need when being the judge and enforcer for the world. That will be the best policy.

[Art]

Sorry, TEG, that view is simplistic and well off the mark.

The most important thing to realize, and the left is far too set on not realizing the obvious, is that Iraq is not North Korea, Pakistan and India. Iraq is a nation living under the terms of a surrender it signed based on its aggression against a neighbor. Those other nations are not. Iraq is a nation we have broad authority over. We are allowed to fly over their nation's airspace.

We are consistent in this. Countries that are under the terms of a surrender, we treat like stepchildren. Countries that aren't, we treat like adults in the hope we may have a carrot they want to alter their behavior.

But, if you want it simple, it can be as well. You don't want the criminal to have a gun. You are much more likely to go after a criminal without a gun than you to go after one who has the gun pointed at your head. North Korea, Pakistan and India have the gun. Simply put, they are to be treated differently because they already can fire at you.

If you don't understand how the dynamic of being a nation that possesses nuclear capability impacts how that nation can be bullied, then you won't understand just how simple it is, and how far off you are. But, it is, and you are.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

The problem is, the left will not state what they want. All they say is what Bush and ther GOP wants is wrong.

[/b[

The left is goign through an identity crisis - thats been rehashed so many times that eventually it wont have any merit as an argument. I dont know what you will cry about then.

Whats ironic is that you havent caught on to Bush's schizophrenic foreign policies. Bush ran on an isolationist foreign policy as a candidate, then moved to a unilateralist foreign policy in his first year in office, then a multilateralist foreign policy and now is onto a internationalist foreign policy (maybe even an imperialist!).

Hello Teddy Roosevelt

So which one is next?

[Kilmer17]

Is anyone on the left capable of answering a question?

[The Evil Genius]

What question? Is anyone on the Right willing to here the truth?

Or to act on it even if they dont like it?

See how ignorant open ended comments/questions like you are making really are?

[tex]

Removing the weapons of resistance is what this is about. Resistance to what you might ask. It's all about the oil and the NWO made famous by the elder Bush's comments. Consistency is not a consideration here.

We must have the oil. The world is running out of it so the battle to control what's left has begun.

[Kilmer17]

Bush ran as an isolationist and would have stayed that way if we hadn't been attacked.

The answer to your question about NK, etc is simple. We will go after ALL nations that threaten us. It stupid to think we can change our focus from Iraq to NK in a blink of an eye. We had already started our campaign against Iraq and changing it would force unnecessary delays.

Israel is one of our allies, much like GB. THey arent a threat.

[Art]

TEG,

You're not wrong there. Sept. 11 changed our foreign policy to a more imperial stance. That's very appropriate given the change Sept. 11 brought. We won't ever have a great number of territories and colonies to come from our imperial alteration. But, the face of the world will -- and has really -- change.

The President basically is telling the people of the world that the protection of an American citizen is more important than the rights of a citizen of another country. It is absolutely a self-centered, protective, dominating and correct stance to take in the wake of 9-11. I'm just glad he's willing to say the obvious. We're better than everyone else. We are. We should never forget that.

[The Evil Genius]

Well...let's see.

North Korea concedes that it is building nuclear weapons.

Check.

North Korea has thrown out international arms inspectors.

Check.

North Korea already has missiles that can hit Japan, South Korea, and maybe the U.S.

Check.

North Korea sells Scuds for cash to sustain its failing economy.

Check.

And yet, you say that we shouldnt intervene?

Consistency Art - I dont see any.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Israel is one of our allies, much like GB. THey arent a threat.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Iraq one of our allies 20 years ago?

All it takes is a generation of misguided youth to change all that. That, and economic hardship.

Consistency, thats all I am asking for. Maybe its too much to ask for, but damnit I want it

[Kilmer17]

Yet again.

Is the chemical weaponry found in Iraq enough proof?

Is Iraqs refusal to abide by ceasefire agreements enough

Is Iraqs refusal to abide by the UN resolutions enough?

If not, then what is?

Of course you wont answer, it's too difficult. Much easier to call the GOP liars (no examples offered or evidence, but that's par for the course) and other names. Next the left will simply deny the evidence exists (CLintons mantra-DENY DENY DENY) until the press buys it.

[Kilmer17]

Using your logic re:Israel, we should go after England as well.

We knew what Saddam was at the time, he was simply the lesser of 2 evils. Israel is a democracy. A big difference dont you think?