28-01-2003 18:34									#1
	Bush says he will declassify intelligence proving Iraqi has WoMD. Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Here's an article from CNN saying that next week Bush will declassify CIA intelligence showing Iraq still has WoMD and is actively hiding them.

quote: U.S. planning to release intelligence on Iraq British official Straw says Iraq in 'material breach' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is likely to declassify intelligence as early as next week that it says shows that senior Iraqi officials have been working to conceal weapons and evidence of weapons programs from United Nations weapons inspectors, administration officials said. The information includes satellite photographs and "intercepts," according to one of the officials, who declined to be more specific. (Full story) Word of the impending offer of proof came hours after top U.N. inspectors sought a few more months' "investment in peace," even though their report to the Security Council stated that Baghdad was resisting U.N. efforts to verify its disarmament. President Bush is expected to lay out his case against Iraq in his State of the Union address Tuesday. He will not call for war but will make it clear that the United States and its allies are prepared for military action, officials said. (Full story) The Pentagon said Monday that the U.S. military will be ready by mid- to late February to quickly go to war if the president gives the order. Officials also said that if Iraq were to make an aggressive move before then, the United States could respond instantly, but any action might be limited to strikes by fighters, bombers and cruise missiles. In an interview Monday, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz promised that Iraq will try to cooperate more with U.N. weapons inspectors -- but said he could not rule out a strike on Kuwait in the event of a U.S.-led military attack. (Full story) And on Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iraq is in "material breach" of the U.N. Security Council resolution requiring it to disclose all weapons of mass destruction. (Full story) Powell: Not much more time for Iraq to disarm Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence revealed photographic evidence gathered in recent days that Iraqi forces have moved an increasing number of hand-held surface-to-air missile launchers and anti-aircraft artillery pieces into key locations in and around the capital, Baghdad. CNN has been told the imagery shows launch sites on civilian buildings and other areas the United States would hesitate to strike. This has been a key Iraqi tactic for years, but it has been stepped up in anticipation of a U.S. strike. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Monday that there was "not much more time" for Iraq to verify that it has complied with a U.N. resolution to disarm. "The issue is not how much more time the inspectors need to search in the dark, it is how much more time Iraq should be given to turn on the lights and come clean," Powell said. (Transcript) Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told the Security Council that Iraq was resisting international efforts to ensure it disarms, but inspectors should have more time to complete their work. Blix said Iraq has failed to account for a wide range of chemical and biological weapons and missiles. He said there is "strong evidence" that Iraq maintained quantities of anthrax after it claimed to have destroyed its stocks. ElBaradei said his inspectors had been unable to verify whether Iraq has an active nuclear weapons program. But he urged Security Council members to let the inspection process "run its natural course." (Transcript) Iraq denies it has weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi leaders insist the United States is looking for an excuse to launch a war to dominate the region and steal Iraqi oil. The Security Council's 15 member nations will hold closed-door discussions on Blix and ElBaradei's report Wednesday and will discuss the next step. CNN correspondents John King, Barbara Starr and Andrea Koppel contributed to this report.

	28-01-2003 18:37									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

About time, if they have proof it's time yo show it. If this turns out to be wrong Bush must rethink his strategy, if the US is right they at least have a point.

	28-01-2003 18:49									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: CNN has been told the imagery shows launch sites on civilian buildings and other areas the United States would hesitate to strike. This has been a key Iraqi tactic for years, but it has been stepped up in anticipation of a U.S. strike.

I bet the leftists will still try to blame the U.S. and Britain when they knock out these missile sites. Why don't Muslim countries respect human life as much as everyone else?

The Iraqis & Taliban were constinently putting military equipment around civilian and religious sites just hoping civilians would be killed so they could score propaganda points with gullible young leftists. TV is full of images of Palestinian parents celebrating after the teenage son blow himself up and killed a school bus full of children. This is disgusting and perverse in the extreme.

	28-01-2003 18:53									#4
	Got spare money?

I have no problems with airstrikes against missile targets. And don't paint all leftists with a broad stroke. I've said before that I have no problem with Iraq getting its ass kicked if in fact they have nukes. If it turns out they've helped terrorists, or planned to distribute WMD's, then I'll be the first one to say "bomb Saddam". But I don't trust the Bush administration one bit. And I am against going to war just on the whim of a politician and his administration that's trying to distract the American people from domestic issues. *cough* the economy *cough*

I suspect this intelligence will be bland, generalized garbilygook; and not the hard evidence that Bush says he has. My theory is that Bush is just going to be pointing the finger at Iraq saying they are the ones that must come up with the proof.

If I had a direct line to Bush, I'd say something along the lines of, "You say Iraq has WMD's... prove it! Show me some evidence. You say Saddam is lying when he says he doesn't have any WMD... well, show me the money Mr. President."

	28-01-2003 19:03									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

about the time, what was the point of all those silly games up to now anyway?

He should have come up with the threat of doing that straight 1yr ago, and should have come up with the evidence when that "UK evidence" (that did nothing but speculate.) was shown, or at least when Saddam filled his 12000 pages report.

	28-01-2003 19:05									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Sava: I call a spade a spade when I see one. The people who protest when things like this happens are always leftists. Mark my words; when the Iraqis put a missile battery on top of a school and the U.S. blows the missile battery up the leftist protesters will come out of the wood work saying "The evil U.S. is intentionally trying to kill children! I saw it on Iraqi TV!".

They did it when the Taliban turned Mosques into weapons depots, they did it when Saddam put women and children as human shields in his WoMD factories, and they'll do it again this time around.

	28-01-2003 19:16									#7
	Remove this text

I hope it's some damn good evidence because the Administrations has done little more than foment fear in making a case for a preemptive war.

	28-01-2003 19:20									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sava I have no problems with airstrikes against missile targets. And don't paint all leftists with a broad stroke. I've said before that I have no problem with Iraq getting its ass kicked if in fact they have nukes. If it turns out they've helped terrorists, or planned to distribute WMD's, then I'll be the first one to say "bomb Saddam". But I don't trust the Bush administration one bit. And I am against going to war just on the whim of a politician and his administration that's trying to distract the American people from domestic issues. *cough* the economy *cough* I suspect this intelligence will be bland, generalized garbilygook; and not the hard evidence that Bush says he has. My theory is that Bush is just going to be pointing the finger at Iraq saying they are the ones that must come up with the proof. If I had a direct line to Bush, I'd say something along the lines of, "You say Iraq has WMD's... prove it! Show me some evidence. You say Saddam is lying when he says he doesn't have any WMD... well, show me the money Mr. President."

What about the economy? I'm too worried about the war.

	28-01-2003 19:22									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Impressive...Bush lets everyone get worked up and sees which allies are good and which are ****, knowing all along that he has the evidence in hand to slap em all back into line.

	28-01-2003 19:24									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Of course there has been the evidience which several Iraqi defectors provided back in 1998. They we're part of Saddam's weapons program and they defected with harddrives full of Iraqi documents and papers detailing Iraq's on going weapons programs and how they were going about hiding them.

Iraq has been saying that all of its weapons were destroyed in 1991 but how could that be if we have evidience that shows they were still with us in 1998? Either Saddam is lieing or all of our evidience to the contrary from 1991 to the present is wrong. Forgive me if I find Saddam's claims to be suspect.

So the real question becomes do people not want to look at the evidience because they are afraid of what they will have to do because of it?

	28-01-2003 19:25									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I am not holding my breath.

After Ashcroft failed to extradite a Pakistini from the UK, it becomes very difficult to believe that the W. admin actually has all sorts of alleged evidence.

	28-01-2003 19:27									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sava I suspect this intelligence will be bland, generalized garbilygook; and not the hard evidence that Bush says he has. My theory is that Bush is just going to be pointing the finger at Iraq saying they are the ones that must come up with the proof.

This attitude is why we have not shown evidence.

Our best evidence comes from human intelligence sources. That is spies. That is Iraqi military officers who have turned to our side and are "agents in place" ie moles - providing info. You tell the world what they have provided us and Saddam will check back to see who had access, to find the mole. The mole will die. (and his family too) When this gets out, who will want to provide info to the US any time in the future - in Iraq or anywhere else???

And yet moles will die, compromising US intell for years, to provide info thats likely to dismissed by many anyway.

What they will release will probably be limited, therefore, since they want to do minimal damage to sources and methods. Probably some aerial photog evidence that Saddam moves stuff out of sites just before the inspectors arrive. Will that be enough for you????

	28-01-2003 19:28									#13
	Got spare money?

It's very difficult to get any western European country to extrodite suspects to the U.S. because the U.S. uses capital punishment and the EU doesn't.

	28-01-2003 19:44									#14
	Remove this text

If they have such great evidence, then why haven't they pointed the inspectors to where they "know" NBC weapons are being stored?

Answer: their evidence is full of crap.

W's gonna trot out some crap from 1994 in a little dog-and-pony show to rally support, everybody's going to ignore him and his administration will claim that it's presented a decisive case and refuse to answer any further questions on the subject.

	28-01-2003 19:44									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Even if I grant you that, why did the US have all sorts of difficulties in convincing Western countries, particularly France and Germany, that Iraq has CBN weapons?

	28-01-2003 19:45									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Euro-peaceniks.

	28-01-2003 19:52									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Bush has very often said that he has proofs for WMDs in Iraq. So if he wants to maintain his reliability it is tme to make them public.

WeŽll see if he really has proofs or if it is only another Version of the Blair-Paper

	28-01-2003 19:52									#18
	Tired of ads?

LOTM: And you want to trust the inept American Intelligence community? The same people that knew almost everything leading up to 9-11 but couldn't connect the dots? And on top of that, we're trusting the words of a few Iraqi informants in moles? That's like a copy of a copy of a copy. I wouldn't trust it, and thankfully, most of the World isn't either.

Show me a friggin picture of a nuke, some sort of evidence. I don't want this heresey crap. It's retarded... it's just political right-wing rhetoric fodder and it's not worth starting a war over.

But then again, that's just my theory. I could be wrong, it's happened before and happens often . This whole situation reminds me of a joyful South Park quote:

Cartman -- "Suck my b4lls Mr. Garrison!"
Mr. Garrison -- "Present them."
Cartman -- "What?"
Mr. Garrison -- "You want me to suck your b4lls? Then present them?"

Well, I'm not going to suck Bush's b4lls unless he presents them!

	28-01-2003 19:52									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Bush has very often said that he has proofs for WMDs in Iraq. So if he wants to maintain his reliability it is tme to make them public.

WeŽll see if he really has proofs or if it is just another Version of the Blair-Paper

	28-01-2003 19:56									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Frogger If they have such great evidence, then why haven't they pointed the inspectors to where they "know" NBC weapons are being stored? .

1. Because the inspectors are "leaky" which endanges sources and methods
2. Because the leaks (and the intensive Iraqi espionage against the inspectors) make the inspections ineffective - we give the inspectors intel - the iraqis find out - they "clean" the site - and voila, "no weapons - the inspections are working"
3. Because even if weapons are found A. the sourcs and methods are still blown B. The French and Germans still wont come aboard

	28-01-2003 19:58									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Even if I grant you that, why did the US have all sorts of difficulties in convincing Western countries, particularly France and Germany, that Iraq has CBN weapons?

Well i could answer that, but I'm trying to avoid saying nasty things about France and Germany, who will still be our allies when this is past.

	28-01-2003 20:00									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Those are the weakest excuses I've ever seen, LOTM.

It all boils down to the fact that the US intelligence community has squat to prove anything against Iraq. The cost of inspectors finding nothing to the US position has been a lot higher than revealing a source or two would have been (especially now that W's gonna endanger the same sources if he actually presents some real proof).

So is the current US admin lying or just plain stupid?

	28-01-2003 20:03									#23
	Suffering from ads?

Frogger, UR:

There have already been reports that

1. Iraqis were tipped off to immanent UN inspections in at least one case. This means any "inside" intelligence sources could be at risk, as LOTM said.

2. European dipolmats acknowledge in private that Iraq still has chem and bio weapons.

Right now we have a pair of sixes showing. Our cards in the hole had better be pretty good.

PS: Wonder if Saddam has stashed stuff in mosques?

	28-01-2003 20:03									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sava And on top of that, we're trusting the words of a few Iraqi informants in moles? That's like a copy of a copy of a copy. I wouldn't trust it, and thankfully, most of the World isn't either.

Perhaps you had difficulty with my English - i didnt say an informant IN a mole (Im not sure what that means,frankkly) I said informants who ARE moles - Not a copy of copy at all, but actual Iraqi officials in place, who have more knowledge of whats really going on than anyone.

And of course the owrkd doesnt trust it cause the world hasnt seen it - and they wont, cause its to dangerous to make is public - and in a couple of months we'll have US troops on the gorund finind evidence, so whats the point??

	28-01-2003 20:06									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sava

Show me a friggin picture of a nuke, some sort of evidence. I don't want this heresey crap. It's retarded... it's just political right-wing rhetoric fodder and it's not worth starting a war over.

/QUOTE]

There are no pictures of Saddams WMD. They're kept underground, safe from the prying eyes of sat recon.

	28-01-2003 20:06									#26
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith Stuff

Anyhoo, we'll just have to wait and see. But I'm not holding my breath. Sounds like a PR ploy, not a serious presentation of facts.

	28-01-2003 20:09									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sava LOTM: And you want to trust the inept American Intelligence community? The same people that knew almost everything leading up to 9-11 but couldn't connect the dots?

Perhaps becuase before 9-11 there was no "smoking gun" Just a lot of disconnected little pieces of inofrmation, that only a paranoid would connect into evidence for what was really happening. There's plenty of "dots" relating to iraqi WMD, (and quite a few dots relating to Al qaeeda ties) but now th every people who thing US intel should be better at connecting dots wont accept the logic of connecting dots.

	28-01-2003 20:10									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Even if I grant you that, why did the US have all sorts of difficulties in convincing Western countries, particularly France and Germany, that Iraq has CBN weapons?

It mostly has to do with politicians trying to stay in office when faced with strong anti-war feelings of the populace and a weak economy. That along with dislike for Bush personnally and a knee jerk reaction to stick a finger in the U.S.'s eye when ever possible, especially by Gerhard.

The French politicians have the same problems the German politicians have but they are going to be "in " once things get rolling in Iraq, but, they would like to rangle a few more concessions out of the U.S. in the mean time. In short it is classic Chirac; he will try to be all things to all people (to strengthen Franco-German solidarity but still jump in with the U.S. and Britain at the last minute so that France will have a seat in the post war reordering of Iraq) and still secure the best possible out come for France.

	28-01-2003 20:12									#29
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith There have already been reports that 1. Iraqis were tipped off to immanent UN inspections in at least one case. This means any "inside" intelligence sources could be at risk, as LOTM said.

What sort of reports?

	28-01-2003 20:13									#30
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Frogger Those are the weakest excuses I've ever seen, LOTM. It all boils down to the fact that the US intelligence community has squat to prove anything against Iraq. The cost of inspectors finding nothing to the US position has been a lot higher than revealing a source or two would have been (especially now that W's gonna endanger the same sources if he actually presents some real proof). So is the current US admin lying or just plain stupid?

well you've nailed down the real question - whats the cost of not providing a smoking gun

There are tow costs to the US going in without as much allied support as we'd like
1. Short term - Less support during the war
2. Long term - less support in the aftermath, strained alliances, etc

1 - is not a problem - we dont need French or German help during the war
2 - would be a problem - but doesnt require a smoking gun pre-war, as long as we find stuff DURING the war - we just the war ex post, instead of ex ante.