SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (3395)1/24/2003 9:20:50 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 8683
 
The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

· Washington now concentrating on timing
· State of union address to 'turn up the heat'
· Blair faces nightmare scenario over war decision

Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall
Friday January 24, 2003
The Guardian

President George Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London.
The US president is "to turn up the heat" in his state of the union address on Tuesday.

"The pressure comes from President Bush and it is felt all the way down," a European official said. "They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now."

Mr Bush wanted the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to force the issue of military action by presenting evidence of Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions immediately after weapons inspectors give their report to the UN on Monday. In Washington circles such an event is being referred to as the Adlai Stevenson moment.

The "Adlai Stevenson moment" has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba.

Downing Street was alarmed by the Bush administration's sudden haste in moving towards a climax. It was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp David for talks with Mr Bush next Friday.

An informed source in Washington said: "Blair is a good guy. They won't want to do that to him. They want it to look like he played a part in the policy-making but the decision has been made."

A key moment will now be the state of the union address. According to a Washington source, the US administration remains divided along old fault lines about the precise timescale of war. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, wants Mr Bush to set a clear and imminent deadline. But Mr Powell, is resisting, asking for a little more time for diplomatic coalition-building.

But both sides of the divide are making it increasingly clear that the end result will be military action, with or without UN backing.

The chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, yesterday brushed off mounting anti-war feeling across Europe, led by France. It was "entirely possible that France won't be on the line", he said, adding that Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain and "virtually all of the eastern European countries" would provide support.

Mr Powell echoed this, saying: "I don't think we will have to worry about going it alone."

The impatience within the White House for action against Iraq came on a day in which the cracks in the international coalition against Iraq widened. China and Russia joined France and Germany in warning the US against precipitate action and calling for Washington to work within the UN.

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, revealed the extent of European anger over the US position when he told Washington to "cool down". The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."

But Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming that Iraqi scientists were at risk of death. "We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families," he said.

Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most.

Mr Bush will lay out the broad case for toppling President Saddam next Tuesday but White House officials insist the speech, a year after the president coined the phrase, "axis of evil", will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David.

"We said that has to be a substantive consultation, not a fait accompli," one British official said. The British argument is that the longer the US waits before showing its hand, the better the case it will have to put before the UN security council, as the inspectors come across more Iraqi infringements.

The Foreign Office had initially sought to defuse the rising tension around next Monday's inspectors' report by denying that it represented a "moment of truth", but in recent days a source conceded: "That was never going to be realistic. Of course it's important."

At his meeting with Mr Powell yesterday, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, clung to the official line. "There are still ways that this can be resolved peacefully," he said. Mr Straw repeated that the British preference is for a second UN resolution before any further action against Iraq but Mr Powell, in a change of tack, refused to commit himself to seeking a second resolution.

One of the factors behind Washington's haste appears to be the annual rise in temperatures in the Iraqi desert over the next few months. In theory, US and some allied troops have the capacity to fight in any weather but the effectiveness of both soldiers and equipment diminishes rapidly when the temperature rises over 35C.

"The planes have been designed for the cold war. They start losing lift, carry lighter loads, and must make shorter runs when the temperature goes over 35," said one government official involved in Anglo-American debates over the timing of an attack
guardian.co.uk



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (3395)1/25/2003 4:38:05 AM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8683
 
January 25, 2003

URL:http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030125-37218807.htm

Bush speech to focus on Iraq
By Joseph Curl and Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush will tell Americans in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that Saddam Hussein possesses "massive piles of weapons of mass destruction," but has not decided what to say about providing more time for U.N. weapons inspectors to look for those arms in Iraq.


The president will use his nationally televised, prime-time speech "to continue the education of the public about the threat and danger that the Iraqi regime poses," one administration official said.
Mr. Bush is waiting for more information early next week before deciding whether to support more time for the U.N. inspectors to conduct searches in Iraq, a senior administration official said.
Meanwhile, a senior official at the Pentagon said yesterday that Saddam plans to sabotage oil facilities in the event of an invasion by the United States and that U.S. forces will take steps to protect Iraq's energy infrastructure.
Mr. Bush will declare in his hourlong address to the nation that Iraq is dangerous "due to the massive piles of weapons of mass destruction it currently possesses," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said.
"The president will talk about and provide context to the American people about those events that are upcoming," Mr. Bartlett said.
The president will not "declare war" or provide direct evidence of weapons violations by Iraq, the senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The senior official said the administration is contemplating allowing the inspections to go on longer as a means of reassuring nervous European allies — especially Germany and France.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell dismissed European calls for significantly more time.
"I have yet to hear from any of my European colleagues as to when they would be satisfied with respect to inspections," Mr. Powell said in today's editions of the Financial Times.
"The trouble with this is ... the issue is not the inspectors. The issue is Iraq," Mr. Powell said, adding:
"What will we know in two or three months' time in the face of Iraqi noncooperation, which you most likely will get?"
Mr. Powell, the most dovish senior official in the administration, said time is running out for Saddam.
"Iraq continues to try to do it their way. They continue to deceive. They continue to practice deception. They are not answering the most fundamental questions that, in the last several days, we have been putting before the world in very stark terms," Mr. Powell said.
"What happened to the anthrax? What happened to the chemical weapons?" he asked. "What happened to the artillery shells? What happened to the botulinum toxin? ... Why aren't you coming clean? Why do you continue to act as if nothing has really changed?"
The White House yesterday also accused Saddam of threatening to kill Iraqi scientists who try to be interviewed in private by U.N. weapons inspectors.
"President Bush believes that Iraq's refusal to allow Iraqi scientists to submit to private interviews with U.N. inspectors is unacceptable," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said.
"Iraq has an obligation to comply. This is not a matter of negotiation. This is not a matter for debate. Saddam Hussein has no choice.
"His refusal is further evidence that Iraq has something to hide," the spokesman added. "Iraq must allow and encourage its scientists to participate in private interviews, and it must do so without delay and without debate."
The comments came as a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency said cooperation from Iraqi officials has been "quite satisfactory."
"Their report card will be a 'B,'" spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told the Associated Press.
With IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei poised to relay this positive assessment to the U.N. Security Council on Monday, the White House hastened to offer a second opinion.
"The only grading system should be pass-fail," a senior administration official said
The White House noted that Saddam has killed Iraqis who were disloyal, including his own sons-in-law. By branding the inspectors as "spies," Saddam makes clear to Iraqi scientists that they will be killed if they cooperate, Mr. Fleischer said.
"While [weapons inspectors] are saying that they have gotten what they call some cooperation from Saddam Hussein, they are also the first to say ... that they are not getting the cooperation they need when it comes to interviewing the scientists," Mr. Fleischer said. "And they are not getting the cooperation they need and demand about being able to fly U-2 surveillance aircraft over sites in Iraq.
"The real issue is Saddam Hussein making the end of the line come even closer by his unacceptable behavior."
A variety of intelligence sources suggest that in the event of war, Iraq plans to "cause damage or destruction to their oil fields," the senior Pentagon official said in a briefing for reporters.
"We see that as a real potential crisis," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "And as we have crafted a variety of plans, we have taken that into consideration in a fashion that would allow us to preserve and protect that natural resource, that economic future for the Iraqi people."
Saddam controls oil wells, refineries, terminals and pipelines and "we have a concern that he will try to destroy everything," the official said.
Iraqi military forces sabotaged about 700 oil wells in Kuwait at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, causing an environmental disaster and serious financial loss for Kuwait.
Baghdad's forces also released about 5 million barrels of Kuwaiti oil into the Persian Gulf, threatening desalination plants needed to produce fresh water.
"The oil fields in Iraq are about 1,500 wellheads, roughly 1,000 in the south and roughly about 500 in the north. And [Saddam] also, because of the oil manifolds in the Al Faw Peninsula, has a capability to deliberately release up to 2 million to 3 million barrels a day of oil into the Gulf," the senior Pentagon official said. "Destruction of the oil fields truly would be an act of terror."
Repair of the Kuwait oil fields cost about $20 billion. The cost estimate for sabotage of Iraq's oil infrastructure is between $30 billion and $50 billion, the official said.
The official said Iraqi officials have planned, and may have actually taken steps to prepare for, sabotaging oil facilities.
"We have seen military movement in both the northern and southern oil fields that indicate to us that there is a focus on those fields," the official said.
U.S. military planners have crafted strategies for rapid seizure of the oil fields to prevent their destruction.
"This is not about oil as a commodity. It is about oil as the future — as it relates to the future of Iraq," the official said. "This is not about the United States trying to gain advantage by taking these oil fields or to preserve its own oil industry. It is solely and most importantly to preserve the capability of the Iraqi people to stand up very quickly after a Saddam regime and become a functioning, capable member of the economic community."
• Bill Sammon contributed to this report.