Then Brix reported that Iraq was in breach of 1441. The only question at that point was what to do with fact Brix stated Iraq wasn't complying
Nothing! Let the inspections continue! That is if you are a member of the George W Bush administration testifying before the United States Senate
- THE JANUARY 27 UNMOVIC AND IAEA REPORTS TO THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ON INSPECTIONS IN IRAQ
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1
I love how that hearing stated "
In my opinion, Iraq has failed to comply with these
requirements and is in material breach of these obligations. "
"
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach.
This has been a dramatic week. On Monday, Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei presented their reports to the U.N. Security Council. On
Tuesday afternoon, the government of the United Kingdom stated that,
based on that report, Iraq was in further material breach. On Tuesday
evening, President Bush was unequivocal. ``We will consult,'' he said,
``But let there be no misunderstanding. If Saddam Hussein does not
fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the
world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.''
This situation has just about reached a boiling point, and the
entire world is watching. Rightfully so. This is what Monday's report
told us: since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,
Iraq's last chance to disarm, Iraq has refused to hand over or destroy
its chemical and biological weapons; Iraq has refused to identify the
location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum
toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas; Iraq has refused to surrender its
mobile biological capabilities, which are essentially germ laboratories
tucked into the back of a Mack truck; and Iraq has refused to account
for tens of thousands of empty--and full--chemical and biological
warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons
we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after
inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam
Hussein may have amassed in the years since.
This is not some abstract concern. This is a concrete and
significant military capability--one that Saddam Hussein has shown a
willingness to use. And consider that the amount of biological agent
that U.N. inspectors believe Iraq produced--the 25,000 liters of
anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin--is enough to kill tens of
thousands of people. Perhaps far more, depending on how, when and where
it is released. And consider that UNSCOM found more than just the
evidence of bulk biological agents. The inspectors also found that Iraq
had developed effective and efficient means for dispersing these
materials: unmanned aerial vehicles, spray devices, special munitions.
We don't know where any of it is. And the last 60 days of new
inspections have turned up no additional information that could allay
any concerns about this military capability.
On Monday, Dr. Blix came to the conclusion that ``Iraq appears not
to have come to a genuine acceptance--not even today--of the
disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out
to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.'' The
Department of State shares this conclusion. Iraq has failed to
cooperate actively, and without active cooperation, the peaceful
disarmament of Iraq is not going to be possible. As you have heard us
say, time is running out for the Iraqi regime to remedy this situation.
The implications are stark. For 12 years, the international
community has demanded that Iraq disarm. And for 12 years, we have
tried to limit the damage that Saddam Hussein could inflict on his
neighbors and on his own people. But throughout this time, Saddam
Hussein has constantly tested and correctly assessed that none of these
measures has any real teeth. That he personally need not pay the price
for any of it. That he need not change any of his behaviors or give up
any of his ambitions. And so despite the international community's
effort, and the inspectors' Herculean effort, Saddam Hussein remains a
threat.
In effect, the United Nations has tolerated defiance and allowed
the Iraqi regime to retain its devastating military capability for far
too long. Last fall, this situation compelled President Bush to
challenge the international community to take a stand. And the U.N.
Security Council responded by unanimously passing Resolution 1441, a
resolution that dramatically broke with the past. It included tests
that have to be passed and it had teeth."
"
The presentations we heard on Monday in the Security
Council confirmed that, in spite of the urgency introduced into
Resolution 1441, Iraq did not meet either test. The declaration
was a fundamental test of cooperation and intent, and Iraq
failed it resoundingly."
----why did you provide us with testimony and statements of things I already told you about? Yes...we know Iraq was in breach...thanks for reminding me of what I already told you
Oh and this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:
The administration officials, including the President on
Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members of the al-Qaeda network.
Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that
claim?
And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it
seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the
least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum
tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure
of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to
undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be
true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do
what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX,
anthrax, things we know.
So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if you
are able to share with us, is there about direct connection
between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for
how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the
evidence we are presenting?
Mr. Armitage. Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda,
in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in
Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent
assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was
apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident
in Baghdad.
Having said that, I am not making the case here that this
is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the
President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is
the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief
that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us
ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much
concern. And this will be part of the information that
Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They
are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as
possible to give him a pretty full case.
On the question of why we spend so much time on things that
are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on
the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a
difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.
Senator Biden. I agree, you did.
Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was
to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe
that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a
conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the
side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather
than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take
your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy,
``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with
your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.
historynewsnetwork.org
www.politifact.com
