Iraq WMD War: Timeline 2003, video/audio, sources

Sergei Lavrov {0:43 bb}: All these new finds — documents and physical evidence — do not change the basic assumption, on which UNMOVIC and IAEA are working.

Namely, that they don’t have any evidence.

That Iraq has resumed its WMD programs.

Nor can they assert, that all these programs have been stopped.

Flowing from this is the need for inspections to continue.

Reporter: The U.S. says that time is running out.

What does their pressure due to the process?

Sergei Lavrov: I think—

I think—

If somebody feels that time is running out, the question “why” should be asked from that particular country.

Not from me.

George W. Bush: It is up to Iraq—

To show exactly where.

It is hiding its banned weapons.

Lay those weapons out.

For the world to see.

And destroy them.

As directed.

Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons.

Sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax.

Enough doses to kill several million people.

He hasn't accounted for that material.

He's given no evidence, that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded, that Saddam Hussein had materials.

Sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

Enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure.

He hasn't accounted for that material.

He's given no evidence, that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate, that Saddam Hussein had the materials, to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent.

In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands.

He's not accounted for these materials.

He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates, that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions, capable of delivering chemical agents.

Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence.

Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions.

He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs.

These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors.

Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities.

He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed, in the 1990s, that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods, of enriching uranium, for a bomb.

The British Government has learned, that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium, from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us, that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.

He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming.

To the contrary, he is deceiving.

From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work—

Hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors.

Sanitizing inspection sites.

And monitoring the inspectors themselves.

Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations.

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview.

Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.

Intelligence sources indicate—

That Saddam Hussein has ordered—

That scientists, who cooperate with U.N. inspectors, in disarming Iraq, will be killed.

Along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. ...

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal—

That Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists.

Including members of Al Qaida.

Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists.

Or help them develop their own.

* * *

We seek peace.

We strive for peace.

And sometimes peace must be defended.

A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all.

If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause, and by just means, sparing, in every way we can, the innocent.

And if war is forced upon us, we will fight, with the full force and might of the United States military.

And we will prevail.

And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies, and freedom.

Question: Did the president made a compelling case last night?

In the State of the Union?

Do you think?

Sergei Lavrov: Well, we have heard the accusations, based on the paper which the United States circulated last December, based on the questions which still remain unanswered from UNSCOM times, and which were repeated by UNMOVIC, and these questions are well-known.

Question: —President Bush to go to war?

Sergei Lavrov: Well, we have not seen any reason, so far, to undercut the inspection process.

The inspections are useful.

They are efficient and effective.

And they should certainly continue.

* * *

Question: What evidence would Colin Powell have to present to convince you, that war is warranted?

Sergei Lavrov: Convincing.

Question: How convincing?

What exactly?

Sergei Lavrov: You know—

Are you seriously asking me this question?

I have—

{Crosstalk}

We would like to see undeniable proof.

OK?

Question: Ambassador, President Putin said yesterday that Russia might change its position.

Are you taking any action to encourage—

Sergei Lavrov: He did not say this.

{Crosstalk}

You reported this.

He did not say this.

You reported, that he was apparently ready to change his position.

Which is wrong.

He said, that we believe, that inspections must continue.

And that, if Iraq stops cooperating with inspectors, and starts blocking the inspectors, then certainly the Security Council would have to look into it.

We have been saying this all along.

That we are not in favor of inspections.

In spite of Iraqi’s cooperation.

But.

As long as Iraq cooperates.

They must continue.

So there is no change.

In Russian position.

Gavin Esler: Now, let’s cross over live to the State Department where we are joined by John Bolton.

One phrase, from the President, that really leapt out at me last night, was when he said,

Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists that inspectors are supposed to interview?

Do you have evidence?

That the Iraqis are really trying to dupe the inspectors in this way?

John Bolton: I think we have known, since the time of UNSCOM, the predecessor U.N. agency, that Iraqi intelligence, and its denial and deception mechanism, is intimately involved with all aspects of Iraq’s programs and weapons of mass destruction.

So I don’t think we should find this surprising at all.

It’s part of the very sophisticated Iraqi effort, to keep the inspectors from finding the critical evidence.

Gavin Esler: Well, are we getting to the point, where the United States would be able to declare publicly, that you believe, Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution?

John Bolton: I think, Secretary Powell already said.

In response to the Iraqi December 7th declaration.

That that constituted a material breach.

And I think that the evidence we have had for quite some time.

At least some of which the Secretary will lay out next week.

Will demonstrate, convincingly.

One, that Iraq still has extensive programs, and weapons of mass destruction, and long-range ballistic missiles.

That would be a breach of the resolutions.

And second, that Iraq continues to engage in this extensive program of covering up and camouflaging the effort.

Which is a second breach of the resolution.

So.

I think, that is the mission that he has.

That the President has given him.

And that he will fulfil.

In quite convincing detail.

Gavin Esler: Well, a lot of people, as you know here, have been speculating, that this an Adlai Stevenson moment, rather like that moment in 1962, when Adlai Stevenson laid out the case against Cuba.

I mean, is it going to be in this great detail.

That there will be intelligence reports, perhaps pictures, and so on?

John Bolton: Well, it hasn’t been written yet, so I don’t want to foreshadow what exactly it might contain.

But I believe the essence of what the secretary will do, as the President said, in his State of the Union message, is detail the extent of Iraq’s programs of weapons of mass destruction.

And show how the Iraqis have been attempting to cover those programs up.

I think that’s what the President committed to, when we negotiated resolution 1441.

And it’s what I think will be important, in convincing even those who currently may not support taking this matter to the next step.

To show that Iraq has simply not accepted, that it has an obligation to disarm.

This is precisely the point that Hans Blix made on Monday.

Gavin Esler: Do you accept, though, that Colin Powell really has a lot of convincing to do?

Here, at home, as well?

I noticed the ABC poll yesterday, saying two-thirds of Americans want the inspectors to be given more time.

Kofi Annan wants more time.

Mohamed ElBaradei wants more time.

The French, and Germans, and Russians want more time.

John Bolton: I think the polls also show, overwhelmingly, that if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the American people would support the use of force.

Now that is not our preference.

And there is still time.

And this presentation by Secretary Powell is one further effort, to see if we can’t achieve the objectives of this 12-year series of U.N. resolutions, by peaceful means.

I mean, this is not a case of allowing the inspectors another few days, here or there.

We have been waiting for Iraq to be disarmed for 12 years.

That’s a long time.

Gavin Esler: The Russians saying today, that they want, quote “undeniable proof.”

Do you think, whatever the details that General Powell will release next week, you will have that?

You have undeniable proof.

That the Iraqis still have, or are working on, weapons of mass destruction?

John Bolton: There is absolutely no doubt.

That any fair minded person.

Listening to what the Secretary will say.

Has to come to the conclusion.

Both that,

The Iraqis have ongoing programs.

Involving chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

And that,

They have exerted a massive effort.

To cover all this up, and hide it.

From the U.N. inspectors.

Gavin Esler: I wondered, if you agreed with your colleague Donald Rumsfeld, over at the Pentagon, that the French and the Germans, in trying to be a brake on all this, are “old Europe.”

John Bolton: Well. I am not going to get into characterizations like that.

But I think one thing that is important, of course, is that not even the top leadership of those, and many other countries in Europe, have the kind of intelligence that we have.

We will be making available, in ways that have not been made available before.

Information.

Very specific.

Very concrete level.

That has convinced us, and the British, and others, over the months.

Just how serious the threat that Iraq still poses.

I hope that will be enough to persuade them.

Gavin Esler: Can we talk a little bit, in the couple of minutes we’ve got left, about these links that the President said last night.

We were discussing there with Arnaud De Borchgrave {Editor-at-Large, Washington Times, United Press International}.

“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists,” the President said, “including members of Al-Qaeda.”

What have you got on this that we don’t already know?

John Bolton: Well, I think the President was referring in part to the fact Iraq has been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, for years.

And this isn’t speculation.

This has been documented, and released publicly, in the reports we file with Congress every year, and there’s a long record of it.

And I think the points that he made about Al-Qaeda, last night, are also subject to that kind of documentation.

Now how much will be part of the Secretary’s presentation, I don’t know.

I believe the presentation, though, will focus on what has been of particular importance, in the U.N. context, beginning with the cease-fire resolution 687, going back to 1991, that Iraq has been violating for 12 years.

Gavin Esler: The President also said, as he concluded his speech, last night.

He said.

As well as medicines, supplies, and food.

“Bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.”

Again sounds like a slight shift of emphasis.

From resolution 1441.

Which talks about the arms issue.

This does sound again like a different agenda.

Which is regime-change.

John Bolton: I think that, if you have a regime like Saddam Hussein’s, whose very identity, for decades, has been bound up with its imperative to have weapons of mass destruction, that the consequences of eliminating the country of those weapons may well involve eliminating it of Saddam Hussein as well.

And if that comes to pass, and there is no final decision, I believe American and other coalition forces will be greeted as liberators.

Gavin Esler: Thank you very much.

Powell cited almost no verifiable sources.

Many of his assertions were unattributed.

The speech had more than 40 vague references such as “human sources,” “an eyewitness,” “detainees,” “an al-Qaeda source,” “a senior defector,” “intelligence sources,” and the like. ...

Anonymity can be a license.

To exaggerate.

Or even lie ...

Powell embroidered.

One of the two {allegedly} intercepted conversations ...

Here is the relevant portion of the State Department’s translation of a Jan. 30 {alleged} conversation between Iraqi Republican Guard headquarters and an officer in the field:

In recounting this exchange.

Powell changed it.

Significantly.

In Powell’s version.

The order from headquarters.

To “inspect” for ammunition.

Became an order to—

Powell also claimed.

That headquarters told the field officer—

This instruction appears nowhere in the transcript.

When I asked the State Department’s press and public affairs offices, to explain the discrepancy, between its transcript, and Powell’s retelling, they referred me to the department’s Web site.

The material there simply confirmed, that Powell had misrepresented the intercept.

Hans Blix {0:37, audio}:

My reaction was:

And I did that.

And they came back with comments, on a couple of cases, several cases, which they could judge, about sites where we had been.

And where they did not draw the same conclusion.

So, I became increasingly skeptical, about the evidence.

And then came Mohammed ElBaradei.

And he revealed, that this contract.

About the import of uranium oxide from Niger.

That it was a forgery.

And that, I thought, was really a bombshell.

If you allow the expression.

And so, we were very skeptical about it.