Weapons inspectors turn fire on Britain and US

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=363427

Weapons inspectors turn fire on Britain and US
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington and Andrew Grice
21 December 2002

George Bush was under intense pressure yesterday to give UN weapons inspectors intelligence data that the US says proves Iraq is lying when it claims to have given up its weapons of mass destruction.

Hours before Mr Bush was to meet the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, and senior Russian and European representatives, Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, delivered a stinging attack on the US and Britain, accusing them of failing to co-operate with his team.

“If the UK and the US are convinced and they say they have evidence, then one would expect they would be able to tell us where is this stuff,” Mr Blix said. Asked if he was getting enough co-operation from Western intelligence agencies, he said: “Not yet. We get some, but we don’t get all we need.”

Mr Blix spoke as inspections moved into a new, more intense phase. The Security Council has asked his team of weapons inspectors to provide a detailed assessment of Iraq’s arms declaration on 9 January. Two days ago, Washington declared that omissions in the 12,000-page inventory submitted by Baghdad constituted a “material breach” of its obligations to the UN.

That phrase, in American eyes, clears the way for the use of force, though the Bush administration has indicated it will wait a few weeks before launching an attack. Mr Bush said last night the Iraqi declaration was “a disappointing day for those who long for peace”.

Tony Blair told British troops yesterday to prepare for possible military action in Iraq – in an attempt to increase pressure on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction. In a Christmas message that was broadcast to British forces around the world, the Mr Blair heaped praise on their “amazing” work in the past year but warned them: “I am afraid the expectation is there will be a lot more to do in the upcoming year.” The US is doubling its troop strength in the Gulf to 100,000.

Mr Blair said: “When we are dealing with someone like Saddam Hussein, unless you do have the capability to use force if necessary, it is very hard to make the world a more secure and more peaceful place. And sometimes I think the best, indeed the only way, of avoiding war is to be prepared for one if you have to have it.”

The first hint of any intelligence sharing came on Thursday when the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, having lambasted Iraq’s “total failure” to comply with UN resolution 1441, promised “additional support” that would “make the inspections process … more targeted and effective”.

Britain said it would give UN inspectors details of telephone calls from Iraq that had been intercepted. One senior British official said: “We are giving him [Mr Blix] intelligence and we will be giving him more over the next few weeks.”

Mr Blair said Britain would aid the weapons team in its search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But doubts persist over whether the US and Britain possess the hard evidence they claim to have.

**Comments : So where is this hard evidence of WMD’s ? And why isnt UK and US showing it to the UN ? … **

2

"While pressing Mr. Blix to “pick up the pace” of inspections, the White House has been reluctant to provide the data. Officials said they feared that the information could leak to the Iraqis, especially if it was provided before all the inspectors were in place, with secure communications lines that would enable them to handle highly classified data.

Now, they are ready to begin that experiment. One senior administration official said that as early as this weekend, the inspectors would be given higher quality intelligence that would be delivered to the United Nations inspection team’s headquarters in New York and to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. But several officials suggested that the first data sent to the United Nations would not be the best, or most specific, currently available to American agencies.

“Based on our historical experience with Unscom,” said one senior official, referring to the United Nations inspection group that operated in Iraq until late in 1998, “they had a very difficult time keeping information from falling into Iraqi hands.”

Ultimately, officials said, they hoped to provide Mr. Blix’s chemical and biological weapons teams, and the atomic energy agency, with what one official called “just in time” information. The strategy appears to be to feed the inspectors information while they are on the ground, to be acted on before Iraqi intelligence officials can learn of their intentions.

“We are going to give them one piece of information at a time,” another official said, “given strategically at the right moment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/21/international/middleeast/21IRAQ.html

3

Yeah the iraqi's might find out what kind of WMD capabilities iraq possesses..and where.. right ? :)

No Excuses...provide the proof or shut up the war propaganda.

4

Agree Completely.

Where is the proof? If indeed the cia..or whomever sent info on Iraq weapons of destruction... mmm

Should be public knowledge.....(The Who, What, Where and How!)

Whole thing gives me the creeps... goosebumps. A scary feeling.

And a feeling of anxiety and distrust.

<~~~ is prayin for an answer.

5

Here we go again,playing the wheres the proofgame.

I get a distinct feeling of deja vu here,the same people asking the same question.

AAG,do you really want your countries intelligence agencies to give out secret information,when just anyone ask`s for it,that would be what gives me goosebumps and feelings of dread.

Anyway,last i heard the UN investigaters are being given the locations of interest,from both the US and GB.

6

Both governments claim that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction. But so far they have declined to hand over any evidence of where these are concealed so the sites can be checked by Dr Blix and his inspectors.
This is like pushing someone with both hands tied behind his back into the sea to save a drowning man.
How can Dr Blix be expected to do his job properly?
If the US and Britain have the evidence to condemn Saddam, it must be published to convince the world that a war is justified.

7

Whatever happens with the inspecttions and stuff....the result is gonna be war.
Bush is crazy.....cud anyone explain wht this means....he actually said this

Even if the inspectors dont find anything.....the USA will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Husein!

8

Braveheart,

"Here we go again,playing the wheres the proofgame. "

Exactly,

About a year ago we were hearing, "Ussama is our guest", and "Ussama cannot be found". And lo and behold, videos come out of the wood work that Ussama not only did the 9/11 attacks, but virtually owned Afghanistan.

All of the "where-are-the-proofers" were dead wrong about Ussama and are dead wrong now. But denial is not a river in Egypt. For some until they see Saddam smooching a big vial of anthrax they will never believe anything bad is going wrong in Iraq. Weren't those Kurds Muslims too?

For the record, the burden is on the Iraqi's to prove that they do not have WMD.

9

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
For the record, the burden is on the Iraqi's to prove that they do not have WMD.
[/QUOTE]

Whatever happened to burden of proof being on the prosecution, rather than the defendent?

10

Ask Bush why hes gone so loopy, he'll probably tell you..."I don't got to show you no stinkin' reason."

He's not figthing terror,instead he is creating terror and is breeding furhter agression abroad and at home.

Like Braveheart siad , like there realy gona give secret informaton out just like that....

11

Mad Scientist,

“Whatever happened to burden of proof being on the prosecution, rather than the defendent?”

That works great when the defendent is presumed to be innocent. You must have missed a quote from Hans Blix that I quoted in another thread:

“While in most cases issues are outstanding because there is a lack of supporting evidence, in a few cases, there is information in our possession that would appear to contradict Iraq’s account. At this point, I will only mention that there are indications suggesting that Iraq’s account of it’s production and unilateral destruction of anthrax during the period between 1988 and 1991, may not be accurate.”

Earlier in the same document Hans says:

“During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called, full final and complete. Regrettably, much in these documents proved innaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that prescribed programmes or items habe been eliminated.”

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/blix.notes/page5.html

Even Hans is calling Saddam, in diplomatic terms, a liar. Even Hans is saying he cannot be trusted, and in the top paragraph, Hans IS saying that they have direct evidence that contradicts Saddams story on anthrax.

12

AAG,do you really want your countries intelligence agencies to give out secret information,when just anyone ask`s for it,that would be what gives me goosebumps and feelings of dread

Ok...granted. My reasons why I think they should provide this evidence are weak. :)

Thing..is....this NON-information is being used to justify making WAR against a country. My thinking is that with the possibility of such a serious consequence as WAR..... concrete evidence is a moral requirment.

1.) To prove a tangible threat.

2.) To demonstrate to the world that we are conscienable in our foreign polictics.

3.) To prove that its not Iraq's resources we are after.

I don't necessarily agree that secret information be provided in all circumstances, at any time, but when making a case for WAR? Yeah. I think if there is Top-secret evidence stating that there is a case for pre-emptive attack..then absolutely should be given to the public.

No spin DoKtorIng should be allowed or tolerated.

13

This is silly even the pro american and pro israeli guppshup members know theres no proof of WMDs in iraq, there making excuses you can tell by there weak arguments and desperate claims of oh well US will reveal all just watch this space!

Iraq offered the CIA come and get them if you know where they are US refused why because everybody on the ground knows including the iraqis the CIA already in IRaq under the guise of the UN. You trying to tell me America has’nt already got there people in there come on be real.

Does Scott Ritter ring any bells he was previous chief UN weapons inspector eventually said he was CIA agent working on behalf of american administration along with many other UN inspection members :eek: