U.S. weapons makers have doubled the production rate of laser-guided bombs, added a shift to assemble satellite-guided bomb tailkits and boosted production at one ammunition factory to its highest level in 15 years.

Some of the ordnance will replace weapons used in the war in Afghanistan, but another reason for the buildup is to stockpile weapons for possible military action against Iraq, analysts say.

President Bush has said he wants to see Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein removed from power, accusing Saddam of hoarding chemical and biological weapons and seeking nuclear bombs. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld say they have no immediate plans to go to war against Iraq, however. "The job of Central Command is to be prepared for that Iraq contingency, and that plan is probably pretty well in development," said retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, a former naval operations director for Central Command.

"One thing they need to do is bring the stockpiles up, particularly of the laser-guided bombs and JDAMs and Tomahawk missiles."

JDAM stands for Joint Direct Attack Munition, the satellite-guided bomb that has been a favorite U.S. weapon in the war in Afghanistan. Military planners love the JDAM for its pinpoint accuracy and relatively low cost of less than $25,000 each.

[Original web page requires a fee to view]
Associated Press, published 07-15-2002

On the subject of Iraq, Powell reiterated that the Bush administration believes that Iraq needs a change of regime and is pursuing that goal through consultation with U.S. allies. He said the Bush administration has no plans for military action against Iraq at this time.

"What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," Powell said.
State Dept Transcript - ABC's Nightline, published 07-16-2002

Rumsfeld: Every once in a while, there are people in the United States government who decide that they want to break Federal criminal law, and release classified information, and they ought to be imprisoned. And if we find out who they are, they will be imprisoned. It is putting peoples' lives at risk. It is making more difficult the task of finding terrorists across the globe. It is a serious violation of Federal criminal law. Why people do it, I do not know. They obviously want to make themselves look important, and they have favorite reporters and press people that they think they can curry favor with. And they go to them, and hand them things that ought not to be given to the public, and those -- they then appear in a public press.
Dept of Defense Transcript - CNBC, published 07-15-2002

""IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY . . .

...10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion."
Times - UK, published 06-12-2005

"PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. ...

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections. ...

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. ...

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.

[Entire memo at link below]
Times - UK, published 05-01-2005

Boeing Co.'s missile plant in St. Charles is gearing up for another big increase in production of tail kits that turn ordinary bombs dropped from military jets into satellite-guided smart bombs.

The bombs have been used heavily in the U.S. offensive in Afghanistan, and they would figure prominently in any effort to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, defense experts say.

"I think (the Joint Direct Attack Munition) is going to be critical to any operation against Iraq," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a research group in Alexandria, Va.

Boeing is producing 1,500 Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, kits a month in St. Charles. An appropriations package pending in Congress would boost output to 2,800 kits a month by mid-2003.

[Original web page no longer available]
St Louis Post-Dispatch, published 07-23-2002

"Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible, says Woodward.

'Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it.'"
CBS - 60 Minutes, published 04-18-2004

The Pentagon was reported yesterday to be considering a daring new war plan to oust Saddam Hussein, by unleashing a surprise direct assault on Baghdad and other key command centres with the aim of decapitating the regime in a few days.
The "inside-out" plan, reversing the tactics used in the Gulf war by striking at the heart of the regime first, is the latest in a series to be leaked to the press in recent weeks amid a very public build-up of administration rhetoric and flexing of Pentagon muscles.

The plan, as described in the New York Times, would fly US troops into Baghdad on the first day of the campaign, delivering a powerful shock to the Saddam regime and to the Iraqi people, convincing them in one bold stroke that the US was determined to topple the dictator.

The inside-out approach would also be aimed at killing Saddam Hussein or at least isolating him before he could unleash any working biological or chemical weapons in his arsenal. It would also avoid massing large numbers of US troops along Iraq's borders where they could be vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction.


The Guardian, published 07-30-2002

Third, there is enormous flow of things across the Iraqi border. They've got billions of dollars from their oil for food. Instead of buying food for the children, they're buying weapons. They're buying dual-use capability. A biological laboratory can be on wheels in a trailer and make a lot of bad stuff, and it's movable, and it looks like most any other trailer. So the idea that it's easy to simply go do what you suggested ought to be done from the air, the implication being from the air, is a misunderstanding of the situation. They have chemical weapons. They have biological weapons.

They have an enormous appetite for nuclear weapons. They were within a year or two of having them when the -- Desert Storm got on the ground and found enough information to know how advanced their program was. They've kept their nuclear physicists and scientists together in a kluge, and they're continuing to work. So it is a bigger task than that suggests.
Dept of Defense Press Briefing, published 07-29-2002

"Since Bob Woodward disclosed that President Bush in July of 2002 diverted $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress, the Bush Administration has failed to provide one shred of evidence to rebuff the charge. According to Woodward, Bush kept Congress "totally in the dark on this" leaving lawmakers with "no real knowledge or involvement."
Center for American Progress, published 04-21-2004

Q: Bear with me a second as I back into this, but you were livid last week and asked the FBI to investigate leaks. And there was another leak, The New York Times talk about the "inside-out" type of attack taking Baghdad, which I imagine gets you even more livid.

Now the question, first question --

Rumsfeld: That's a word I've never really applied to myself, but --

Q: Pardon me.

Rumsfeld: -- I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Laughter.)

Q: It makes you not a happy camper. Let me put it that way.

Rumsfeld: That's true.

Q: But getting -- specifically now, one, has the FBI agreed to investigate the leaks? And two, are these legitimate leaks or could it be a disinformation program by the Pentagon -- (laughter) -- to try and frighten Saddam Hussein to allow the inspectors back in? And if they are allowed back in, do you think they would find all the weapons of mass destruction?

Rumsfeld: I think it's -- first of all, it's not any kind of a campaign by anyone in the Pentagon. It's leaks.

Second, I do not know whether or not the FBI has engaged the subject.

(To General Pace) Do you, Pete?

Pace: Sir, I know we've asked them to.
Dept of Defense News Briefing, published 07-30-2002

The Bush Administration has already started trying to offset the future costs of a war by stockpiling American oil reserves in anticipation that global supplies would be disrupted and oil prices would rise.

Oil shipments into America’s strategic reserve have reached record levels, adding some 150,000 barrels a day. The White House aims to add more than 100 million barrels to the reserve, which would bring it close to its 700 million barrels capacity.

[Original Times article no longer available on the web. Saved article on website link below and also available here]
Times - UK, published 07-31-2002

July 31 marked the beginning of Congressional hearings on U.S. policy towards Iraq. At two-day hearings, the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations listened to expert testimony examining threats, responses and regional considerations surrounding Iraq.

"[T]he Foreign Relations Committee today begins what I hope will be a national dialogue on Iraq that sheds more light than heat, and helps inform the American people, so they can have a more informed basis upon which to draw their own conclusions," said Committee Chairman Joseph Biden in his opening remarks.

In light of President Bush's expressed determination to use "all possible means" to effect a regime change in Iraq, the hearings are designed to better inform the American people and help them draw their own conclusions, said Biden.

"In my opinion, complicated and relevant questions remain to be answered before making a case for war," said Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel in his opening statement.
State Dept - Washington File, published 07-31-2002

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the global war on terrorism that began in Afghanistan "will not end there."

The war on terrorism "is a global campaign against a global adversary," he said July 31 in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The coalition anti-terror effort will not end, the secretary said, "until terrorist networks have been rooted out, wherever they exist; ... the state-sponsors of terror are made to understand that aiding, abetting and harboring terrorists have deadly consequences for those that try it; ... [and] those developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons end their threat to innocent men, women, and children."

More information on Donald Rumsfelds testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
State Dept - Washington File, published 07-31-2003

In August of 2002, the expanded Iraq desk found new spaces and moved into them. It was told to us that this was now to be known as the Office of Special Plans. The Office of Special Plans would take issue with those who say they were doing intelligence. They would say they were developing policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the invasion of Iraq.

But developing policy is not the same as developing propaganda and pushing a particular agenda. And actually, that’s more what they really did. They pushed an agenda on Iraq, and they developed pretty sophisticated propaganda lines which were fed throughout government, to the Congress, and even internally to the Pentagon — to try and make this case of immediacy. This case of severe threat to the United States.
LA Weekly - Interview with Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, published 02-20-2004

'Educating the Public'

Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.
Washington Post, published 08-10-2003

Worse still, as Cheney knows better than anyone, it was largely the unrelenting pressure he put on intelligence analysts-for example, by his unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters - that rendered those judgments so dubious.
Ray MacGovern - Common Dreams, published 07-29-2003

"In a move that took the international community by surprise, Iraq has invited the chief United Nations weapons inspector to Baghdad for technical talks, it emerged last night."

In a dramatic move, Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, sent a letter to the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, saying the government would like the chief inspector, Hans Blix, and other UN weapons experts to come to Baghdad for talks "at the earliest agreed upon time" in order "to establish a solid basis for the next stage of monitoring and inspection activities and to move forward toward that stage."
The Guardian, published 08-02-2002

Asked about U.S. reaction to Iraqi hints that it will permit weapons inspectors back into Iraq for the first time since 1998, White House Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan told reporters August 2 that Iraq has an obligation to permit United Nations-mandated inspections "any time, anywhere, by anyone."

On the issue of inspections, she noted, "It’s time for action, not discussions." ...

Q: There have been Senate hearings on Iraq for the last two days. Has the White House been paying attention to that? Has the President been watching that testimony, or have any sort of reaction to it?

MS. BUCHAN: I don't know if he's watched the testimony or not. But the President's view is that -- the position of this government is that we need a regime change in Iraq, and he continues to consider all options with regard to that.

Additional information at CBS News

[Complete text of White House Press conference available ]
State Dept Press Release - US Embassy Rome, published 08-02-2002

"... let there be no mistake... our policy... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered whether the inspectors go in or not... we are content that at the appropriate moment we will have the requisite degree of international support."

[Question from John Humphries] "But if you don't have it, and all the indications are that at the moment you won't, then what?"

"We will have it Mr Humphries."
BBC News, published 04-29-2005

Secretary of State Colin Powell, briefing in Manila August 3, suggested that Iraq's intentions in offering in recent days to discuss the Iraq weapons inspections issue with United Nations officials, was "to find a way around their obligations."

"There is no need for further clarification or discussion of a comprehensive approach," Powell said. "The approach is clear and spelled out in appropriate U.N. Security Council resolutions. Inspections aren't the issue; disarmament is the issue."

[Which begs the question: How can disarmament be proven, without inspections?]
State Dept Press Briefing, published 08-03-2002

The Bush administration took its case for war on Iraq directly to the Iraqi people Friday, broadcasting an interview with the Pentagon's third-ranking official calling on Iraqis to topple Saddam Hussein.

"The future that we see for Iraq is a future that would be based on the Iraqi people freeing themselves from the oppression they are now suffering," Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith told Radio Sawa, a newly formed AM radio station broadcast from Kuwait.
United Press International, published 08-03-2002

The U.S. and Britain have in place elements of a plan--that could be executed with or without additional allies--to gut Iraq's key Republican Guard units with air attacks, freeze the production or release of chemical and biological weapons with new microwave weapons and keep the regular army confined to its garrisons, unharmed, through a combination of information and psychological warfare.

With the U.S. repair of three Kurdish-controlled air bases in northern Iraq almost finished, a gradual buildup of allied forces in the Persian Gulf states underway, key elite special operations units retraining after being withdrawn from Afghanistan, U.S. changes of command nearly complete and inventories of precision-guided munitions being restocked, many analysts now believe the U.S. postelection period--December-February--is the most likely time to launch an attack.
Aviation Week, published 08-15-2002

U.S. planners want the regular army intact for a reason. They see the regular army, purged of Hussein supporters, as a crucial element in keeping the country stable and supporting an interim government as it is pieced together from various groups. They value an intact army because it will take 10-12 years to get an elected democratic government functioning, and they don't want U.S. troops to have to run the country while the process of eliminating Saddam Hussein's influence goes on.
Aviation Week, published 08-05-2002

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed Iraq's invitation to members of the U.S. Congress to search for suspected weapons sites in that country as a sham designed to stall action against the Saddam Hussein regime.

"What they'll do is every time they get worried about whether or not the international community is unhappy with them then they'll offer to have inspectors come in, or they'll invite somebody to come in and do something.

"And it will all be a sham," Rumsfeld told members of the National Association of Black Journalists, at the Pentagon for a roundtable briefing August 5.

[The summary above taken from here]
Dept of Defense - Roundtable with the National Association of Black Journalists, published 08-06-2002

Asked how many troops would be needed to conduct such military action, and for how long, Rumsfeld responded, "Oh, goodness, I'm not going to get into that. No such decision has been made."

Rumsfeld expressed his anger once again at individuals who leaked a draft of a war plan -- one that he indicated never reached the top levels of the Pentagon or the administration -- to the New York Times.

"The unprofessionalism of people leaking things that are classified, that are under federal law subject to criminal penalties, that without question make it more difficult for the United States to achieve its goal of trying to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, and without question put American lives at risk I think is just inexcusable," Rumsfeld said.

[The summary above taken from here]
Dept of Defense - Roundtable with the National Association of Black Journalists, published 08-06-2002

Q: A quick one about leaks. You expressed a great deal of concern about leaks. There's now controversy on Capitol Hill about polygraph tests for members of Congress. Do you approve of polygraph tests for Pentagon officials in order to track down leaks?

Rumsfeld: I don't know what the FBI will do. I've asked the FBI to come in and track down a leak on a leaked war plan, and whether they'll do that or not --

Q: Are you referring to the New York Times story, that war plan --

Rumsfeld: Yes. I've never chased a leak in my life until this one. But the unprofessionalism of people leaking things that are classified, that are under federal law subject to criminal penalties, that without question make it more difficult for the United States to achieve its goal of trying to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, and without question put American lives at risk I think is just inexcusable. I don't know what you heard me say about it but whatever it was, it was modulated and calibrated far below what I really feel.

Q: Do you think the New York Times story put American lives at risk?

Rumsfeld: There is no question but that when a person cleared for classified information releases a war plan or a draft of a war plan or papers -- I haven't seen it. It had never been briefed to me, never been briefed to the President, never been briefed to General Franks. It was obviously some papers that somebody down below had been involved with, so I don't even know the document. But there's no question but that when someone releases papers that relate to war plans it's a violation of federal criminal law, they ought to be in jail, and I'm told that I shouldn't say that because they ought to be addressed by the criminal justice system, let me put it that way, rather than predicting an outcome. [Laughter]

Q: Would you mind individuals in this building being subjected to a polygraph --

Rumsfeld: I want the FBI to do that which it decides it should do. That's not my business. I want a thorough investigation and I hope those people are caught and I hope that anyone who's got any ounce of civic duty and knows anything about who did it will tell us.

Q: Have you also called in the Air Force's security office, investigative --

Rumsfeld: That's the way one does it. There's an executive agent for certain things and if you want an investigation I'm told you ask that executive agent -- it happened to be the Air Force -- and they then prepare information that can then be given to the FBI so that the FBI can make a judgment as to what it will or will not think is appropriate by way of an investigation.
Dept of Defense Press Release , published 08-05-2002

US and British fighter jets destroyed the Iraqi air command and control centre at al-Nukhaib in a desert location near the Saudi Arabia border and just under 300 miles south of Baghdad. It is thought the RAF deployed GR4 Tornado jets operating from the Ali Al-Salem airbase in neighbouring Kuwait.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence did admit that there had been a skirmish over the no-fly zone in southern Iraq involving British and American war planes.

“There was a recent response in self defence which resulted in us attacking Iraqi air defences which had been located by Allied air crews.”

He also confirmed that an “enhanced” version of the Paveway Weapon system with a 2 metre accuracy had also been used to knock out the mobile Chinese manufactured fibre optic air defence system.

[Original web page no longer available]
Sunday Express (UK), published 08-18-2002

United Nations -- Secretary General Kofi Annan told Iraq August 6 that the United Nations is willing to continue talks on the return of weapons inspectors, but on the terms set out by the U.N. Security Council, not those of Baghdad.

In a letter to Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri the secretary general said that the first step in Iraq's resolving its issues with the United Nations must be the return of the weapons inspectors.
State Dept - Washington File, published 08-06-2002

Less than 24 hours later two squadrons of US warplanes flew provocatively over the Iraqi capital from the Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia and from American aircraft carriers on exercise in the Gulf. There was no anti-aircraft fire leading the Americans to believe that Saddam’s early warning radar systems are inoperable.

[Original web page no longer available.]
Sunday Express (UK), published 08-18-2002

President Bush has not made a decision at this point to go to war to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power, Vice President Dick Cheney said August 7 in a question and answer session following a speech in San Francisco at the Commonwealth Club of California.

"We're looking at all of our options. It would be irresponsible for us not to do that," Cheney said.
Vice President Discusses the President's Economic Security Agenda, published 08-07-2002

Within 48 hours, around 5pm on Wednesday, August 8 the Iraqi early warning systems were tested yet again as a fleet of troop-carrying helicopters from the Turkish Army swept over the Turkish border and into the strategic Bamarni (OK) military airbase which lies 50 miles north of the oil-rich Al Mawsil city.

The military invasion involved 5,000 Turkish Commandos backed by American Special Forces. Eye-witnesses on the ground claimed air support and/or protection in the northern no-fly zone was provided by Turkish, American and British aircraft. Claims of a British air involvement in this particular action drew a strong denial by the MoD.

After a brief skirmish with ill-equipped Iraqi troops from an armoured section of Saddam’s war machine, Bamarni airbase fell into the control of Allied troops and several C130 transporter planes were guided on to the airstrips from bases in Turkey.

As Turkish troops reinforced security around the airport which lies just outside of the Kurdish district, American Special Forces and a crack unit of Turkish commandos seized two other strategic military points on either side of the airbase in the Dahuk province of Iraq.

[Original web page no longer available]
Sunday Express (UK), published 08-18-2002

U.S. Central Command head Gen. Tommy Franks briefed President Bush this week about a scaled-down contingency plan to strike Iraq that calls for an invasion force of some 80,000 to 100,000 personnel including only 50,000 ground troops, administration officials said.

In this new proposal, an invasion would take place during November and December, administration officials, who asked not to be identified by name, told United Press International.

A spokesman for the National Security Council at the White House said they had no information on the meeting and could neither confirm nor deny that it had taken place.

But a well-placed Pentagon official said, "Franks was asked to brief. The president doesn't have time to bother what with he doesn't want to hear." This official asked not to be quoted by name or assignment. Recent pressure from Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith to try and mount a scaled back invasion by October was turned back by staunch resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, these sources said.

"The generals didn't like the Feith option," said Washington Institute for Near East Policy expert Patrick Clawson. "The Joint Chiefs were wishy-washy, and the Army was strongly opposed. The Marines liked the option and the timing, but didn't want to go against the Army, which is rapidly proving itself irrelevant to modern warfare."

In Franks' proposal the United States would launch initial air attacks by aircraft carrier-based aircraft and cruise missiles designed to paralyze Iraq's air defenses and command and control, the Pentagon official said.
United Press International, published 08-08-2002

08 August 2002: According to the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Turkish troops have taken control of the strategically important Bamerni Airport in south Kurdistan, as a preparation for a future attack on Iraq and to prevent the creation of a Kurdish State.

Apparently, Turkey took control of the airport as a preparation in case of a chaos during attacks against Iraq and the possiblity of a Kurdish State. The Bamerni Airport is from the Saddam era.

Hurriyet reported that Turkey has also sent civil and military personnel to the airport for maintenance and technical support. Several logistics-electronic machinery has also been sent to further improve the condition of the airport.

[translation of full Hurriyet article available
Hurriyet (Turkey), published 08-08-2002

A prominent Iraqi Kurdish leader said in a broadcast Friday that the Turkish army had controlled an airport in the Kurdish-held north of neighbouring Iraq for several years, but the general staff in Ankara promptly denied the claim.

The comments by Jalal Talabani, who heads the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), came amid growing concern of a strike by Washington, a key Turkish ally, to oust the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Kurdistan Observer, published 08-09-2002

On Aug. 9, Feith and Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman met with representatives of the six Iraqi opposition groups to discuss coordinating efforts to topple Saddam and end the infighting that has characterized their efforts in the past.

These groups include the two parties sharing sovereignty over northern Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan; the Iran-based and funded Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; the CIA-funded Iraqi National Accord; the Constitutional Monarchy Movement that seeks to gain popular support for the restoration of the Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad; and the Iraqi National Congress -- a U.S.-backed group that has in the past included all five organizations under its structure.
United Press International, published 08-23-2002

Rumsfeld: Way to go! (Laughter.)

I might just mention that the Iraqi Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998, established as U.S. policy -- and that policy remains in effect today -- regime change in Iraq. Specifically, the law says, quote, "It is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." And it is in that context that these various Iraqi opposition groups are in the country and the meetings are taking place.
Dept of Defense News Briefing , published 08-09-2002

Q. Mr. President, yesterday in an interview I guess with Scott, you described Iraq as the enemy.

THE PRESIDENT: I described them as the axis of evil once. I described them as an enemy until proven otherwise. They obviously, you know, desire weapons of mass destruction. I presume that he still views us as an enemy.
President Bush Discusses Iraq, Waco, Texas, published 08-10-2002

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has expressed scepticism about the chances of re-establishing an effective weapons inspection process in Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld insisted that for inspections to work inspectors must be able to go anywhere in Iraq and talk to anyone at any time.

Mr Rumsfeld said that even if inspectors were allowed back into Iraq the atmosphere of fear that pervades the country would make it difficult to uncover weapons of mass destruction.
BBC News, published 08-13-2002

Q: But the Iraqi opposition groups, during the Clinton administration, were denied so-called lethal training, paramilitary training, and also any sort of U.S. arms. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that? Should they be given paramilitary training and U.S. arms? The Iraq Liberation Act calls for education and training and drawdown of defense stocks, but it's pretty vague as far as what that means. And some of the opposition groups have been pressing for this kind of aid for some time. What are your thoughts on that?

Rumsfeld: Well, I don't have well-developed thoughts on it, and I don't know what the Department of State, who's been handling most of that, has done thus far. So I'm really not in a position to respond, other than I guess the act is what it is. And my impression is that there are Iraq opposition groups in the form of Kurdish organizations that are quite heavily armed already. So -- yes?
Dept of Defense News Briefing , published 08-13-2002

The United States will offer the Iraqi National Congress (INC) an additional $8 million as part of a new cooperative agreement, said State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker.

The State Department notified the U.S. Congress of its intent to provide the funds on May 23, and now awaits a formal response from the INC to the offer, said Reeker, speaking at the August 14 State Department briefing in Washington.

"We're anxious to continue our support for the Iraqi National Congress, their newspaper, their TV station, regional offices, the office of humanitarian relief. So we believe they can continue to play a very productive and useful role through the activities proposed in that new agreement," said Reeker.

The funds will cover the period of June 2002 through December 2002, he said.
State Dept - Washington File, published 08-15-2002

The Iraqi National Congress, based in London, has claimed that the youngest son of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been injured in a shooting in the suburb of Mansur, Baghdad, on Wednesday morning.

The INC claims responsibility for the attack, which may be part of a wider campaign to take out the Iraqi leadership by subversive methods. The news was published in the Arabic language newspaper Al Hayat, which states that “A group from the national resistance shot at the vehicle in which Qusay was travelling after managing to enter the motorcade”. The INC claim that Qusay was slightly wounded, being shot in the arm.
Pravda, published 08-14-2002

U.S. intelligence cannot say conclusively that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, an information gap that is complicating White House efforts to build support for an attack on Saddam's Iraqi regime.

The CIA has advised top administration officials to assume that Iraq has some weapons of mass destruction. But the agency has not given President Bush a "smoking gun," according to U.S. intelligence and administration officials.
USA Today, published 08-15-2002

US/UK increase troop levels for 45K at the beginning of the year, to 105K by August.
Also pre-positioned equipment levels have been increased greatly.

[Summary: Article gives a very good overveiw of the increasing US military presence in the Gulf Region. It contains also a lot of very detailed info on troop and equipment deployments.]
Asian Times, published 08-17-2002

The Security Council said August 19 that it has "no intention of taking up the matter" of Iraq's letter to Secretary General Kofi Annan on weapons inspections.

U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard announced August 19 that the president of the Security Council had informed the secretary general's office that the council would not be holding any consultations on the latest exchange of letters between the secretary general and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.

The United States holds the Security Council presidency for the month of August. The chief U.S. envoy to the U.N., John Negroponte, has been presiding over the council's deliberations for the month.
State Dept - Washington File, published 08-19-2002

Q: Mr. Secretary, there are reports that U.S. intelligence and the U.S. military recently identified a group of non-Afghans in Northern Iraq who were possibly producing chemical weapons and that the site -- the group, whatever -- was targeted by the U.S. military but that the strike was called off apparently because they dispersed or something. Could you fill us in on that or give us any details at all about that?

Rumsfeld: I have said for some time that there are al Qaeda in Iraq, and there are. I have no comment that I care to make on the subject that you raise, however.

Q: So you'd -- I mean, was there any -- you have no information on any --

Rumsfeld: I didn't say I had no information. I said I had no comment that I cared to make. And I don't.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said there are al Qaeda in Iraq. These people are --

Rumsfeld: Repeatedly. I wasn't saying these people -- I was -- I have said repeatedly that there are al Qaeda in Iraq. There are. They have left Afghanistan, they have left other locations, and they've landed in a variety of countries, one of which is Iraq.
Dept of Defense News Briefing , published 08-20-2002

Gen James L Jones, the four-star commander of the Marine Corps, claims, "Afghanistan was Afghanistan; Iraq is Iraq," "It would be foolish, if you were ever committed to going into Iraq, to think that the principles that were successful in Afghanistan would necessarily be successful in Iraq. In my opinion, they would not."
The Telegraph , published 08-23-2002

"But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon....

During the spring of 1995, the inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam's programs to develop chemical weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam's son-in-law suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons programs. That should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself." ...

"...Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Remarks by the Vice President at VFW 103rd National Convention, published 08-26-2002

"There was no intelligence to support Cheney's remark in his major speech of August 26, 2002, which set the tone for all that followed. And yet, in the month that followed, the CIA dutifully conjured up evidence to support Cheney's assertion, in a successful effort to deceive Congress into voting for war. The vice president claimed:

"...we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors-including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

That statement was highly misleading. Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, had been in charge of Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs before he defected in 1995. But what Kamel told us was that all that weaponry had been destroyed at his command in the summer of 1991. Evidently, everything else he told us checked out, including particularly valuable information on Iraq's earlier biological weapons programs.

Many in the intelligence community knew of Cheney's playing fast and loose with the evidence and the subsequent campaign to deceive Congress. Sadly, no one spoke out....

...Newsweek broke the story on February 24, 2003, more than three weeks before the war began. But this news did not jibe with the cheerleading for war, and the mainstream media suppressed it. Even now that Kamel's assertion has been proven correct, the press has not corrected the record."
"The Intelligence Made Me Do It" by Ray McGovern, published 03-18-2005

President Bush and his National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice met privately for more than an hour August 27 with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States, at the Bush family home in Texas.

They discussed a variety of issues, including Iraq, the Middle East, and the war against terror, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters following the meeting.

On Iraq, Bush stressed that he has made no decisions on military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power and will continue to engage in consultations with Saudi Arabia and other nations on the issue, Fleischer said.
State Dept - Washington File, published 08-27-2002

Iraq should undergo a change of regime for the good of its people and in the interest of peace and stability in the region, but how that change should take place "is a subject that's still open for decision," says Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton....

According to Bolton, Saddam Hussein has been trying to acquire "a nuclear chemical and biological warfare capability" and has sought "new kinds of ballistic missile technology to deliver those weapons."
State Dept - Washington File, published 08-30-2002

Rumsfeld: The reality is that with 24-hour news seven days a week - I can't understand it, but for whatever reason, there are people who have access to classified information, who make a conscious decision that they're going to give it to members of the press or to people who are not qualified to have classified information. I think it's disgraceful. It's a violation of federal criminal law. They ought to be prosecuted and thrown in jail. (Cheers, applause.)

Q: Tell 'em!

Rumsfeld: And I have a feeling that if any of the people who compromise classified information had children who were on the front lines and in the lead elements going into battle -- that was compromised because of their release of classified information, that they'd think twice instead of doing something that's so fundamentally wrong, so outrageously wrong, and so illegal.

Now what does all that mean? If you separate out classified information, which is one thing -- and the press don't invent classified information; the press is given classified information by people who have been charged with handling it in a responsible way and don't handle it in a responsible way, and thereby put people's lives in jeopardy. And it is those people that we ought to be focused on, it seems to me.
Dept of Defense Press Briefing, published 08-27-2002

QUESTION: Richard, you said the only way to take care of the problem fundamentally in Iraq is regime change, but you also said that the inspectors have a role to play either way. In the absence of regime change, what can the inspectors accomplish in Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: Let's look at is this way. If an Iraqi regime wants to come clean and get right with the world, inspections can help demonstrate that they've done that. If an Iraqi regime like the one we've got continues to try to cheat and hide, inspections have shown in the past the ability to find some things the Iraqis were trying to cheat and hide on, and destroy some things that they might have admitted.

But you'll never have, as the Vice President said the other day, you'll never have that assurance that they have eliminated all the programs because they're still trying to cheat and hide, and you have to face the fact it's possible to cheat and hide on some of these things.

So either way, there's a role for inspectors. ...

QUESTION: No, no, it's a very good question, I think. Is regime change just another way of saying war?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: It's not another way of saying war?

MR. BOUCHER: No.

QUESTION: Seeking to change a regime is not another way -- I mean, isn't that what people go to war to do? I mean, I'm saying --

MR. BOUCHER: There are other ways that regimes change. You can go to a history professor for that one. I'm not going to pretend to be the -- anyway.
State Dept Press Briefing, published 08-29-2002

QUESTION: Iraq. Is the administration considering, even though it might not work, another effort through the United Nations to get inspectors admitted, as sort of an example of US interest and resolve?

MR. BOUCHER: I don't think I have anything one way or the other on that at this moment. What I would say is we all need to be quite clear that Iraq is under very clear obligations from the UN Security Council. The Security Council has made clear repeatedly that Iraq needs to live up to those obligations. And that continues to be the case. If the Security Council decided to make that clear again at some point, it would be consistent with what we've done in the past. But I don't have any prediction one way or the other. ...

QUESTION: Well, Richard, what do you make, if anything, of the suggestion from Britain that perhaps a deadline should be given to Saddam for the return of inspectors? Would you be prepared to support such an initiative?

MR. BOUCHER: Well, let's first let the British Government decide. There was a statement from the Foreign Office, I think, that said that what I said first of all, that Iraq is already under UN Security Council obligations that they've accepted and have failed to implement; and second of all, they said that there was, I think, an MP's report suggesting a deadline be set, and they would consider that. So let's see what the British Government decides, if they want to go forward or not. ...

QUESTION: You're worried that perhaps if you say something about it that might sway the Brits one way or another?

MR. BOUCHER: You're asking me on the idea, and I'm saying we haven't taken a position at this point on the idea of going back to the UN. And then you're asking me, well, what do you think about the British idea of going back to the UN, and I'm saying we haven't taken a position one way or the other on it. Let's see what the British do.

[Note: In the leaked document known as the "Downing Street memo" dated 7/23/02, a sentence states: "The NSC [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route..."]
State Dept Press Briefing, published 08-29-2002

(AP) The British government said Thursday it is considering calling for a deadline to be set for Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

The Foreign Office issued a statement that said the government would discuss this possibility with its allies, including the United States.

But it did not say whether the U.N. Security Council should set the deadline or what should be done if the Iraqi leader ignored such a deadline.

U.N. inspectors left Baghdad in December 1998 and Iraq has barred them from returning. There has never been a deadline set for their return, and the British proposal would pressure the Iraqi president to allow them back or face any consequences.
CBS News, published 08-29-2002

By the end of August 2002 the US had moved equipment, which had been stored in Qatar and Europe, to Kuwait. The US had enough equipment in Kuwait -- three brigade sets -- to support about 15-25,000 troops in Kuwait. It would take only a few days to bring in the soldiers to man the tanks, artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers now in place.
GlobalSecurity.org, published 09-05-2002

In September 2002, due to increased workload related to the Global War on Terrorism and the possibility of an Iraq contingency, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the expansion of the Northern Gulf Directorate within NESA.

This office was responsible for exploring policy concerns in planning issues ranging from deployment, coalition building, potential war crimes investigations, Iraqi opposition and training issues, oil issues, postwar Iraqi media and many others. Their office was increased from 4 people to approximately 16 to handle the increased workload.

In October 2002, the Directorate of Special Plans was formally established as an expansion of the NESA’s Northern Gulf Directorate to concentrate on policy issues with respect to Iran, Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism.

Renaming

It was titled the “Directorate of Special Plans” because, at that time, the creation of an “Iraq Planning” group (or similarly named group) in the Pentagon conducting specialized planning for a potential Iraq contingency could have undercut ongoing diplomatic efforts in the UN and elsewhere.
Dept of Defense - Pre-war Planning for Post-war Iraq, published 01-2003

Some lawmakers worried that Bush wasn't hearing the generals' objections. At a White House meeting last week, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., informed Bush that senior officers had told him about their strong reservations about the proposed unprovoked attack. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who was also at the meeting, says Bush looked stunned and, after a pause, replied, "Well, I wish they'd tell me about their concerns."

The exchange came after months of leaks about dissent within the administration. They fueled questions about whether Bush had consulted widely enough. The tightly held process left the impression with some that Bush was searching for a justification after deciding to target Saddam.

"The decision-making process ... bypassed much of the intelligence community and many people in the U.S. Central Command as well as the normal national security process," says Anthony Cordesman, a veteran Mideast military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "As a result, it has never achieved any clear consensus within the administration, and there has been nothing approaching coherent public diplomacy to convince our allies."
USA Today, published 09-10-2002

"...Documentary evidence and ministerial answers in parliament reveal the existence of a clandestine bombing campaign designed largely to provoke Iraq into taking action that could be used to justify the start of the war.

In the absence of solid legal grounds for war, in other words, the allies tried to bomb Saddam Hussein into providing their casus belli. And when that didn't work they just stepped up the bombing rate, in effect starting the conflict without telling anyone."
New Statesman , published 05-30-2005

Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon "consultant" and a member of its unpaid defence advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title....

Mr Gingrich visited Langley three times before the war, and according to accounts, the political veteran sought to browbeat analysts into toughening up their assessments of Saddam's menace.
The Guardian, published 09-17-2003

Excluding forces deployed in direct support of Operation Enduring Freedom, there are probably about 48,000 military personnel in the CENTCOM area of responsibility, including about 440 aircraft of all types. The number of troops deployed in the area fluctuates on a daily basis, and has averaged between 20,000 and 25,000 in recent years, with typically about 200 aircraft in the region. Forces in the region include a mix of special operations forces deployed in support of US Central Command operations. To enhance force protection throughout the region, additional military security personnel are also deployed.

Ground forces include a variety of units that are normally deployed in the region, which total about 3,700 troops. Forces in the region include a Patriot missile task force with two batteries deployed in Saudi Arabia and two in Kuwait. The Army Intrinsic Action / Desert Spring training exercises routinely deploy 1,500 to 5,000 troops for rotations of several months. As of mid-September 2002 a brigade rotation was in progress, involving as as many as 10,000 soldiers in Kuwait. In addition to the 3,700 soldiers normally in the region, this troop rotation would bring the total Army presence to nearly 14,000 soldiers.
GlobalSecurity.org, published 08-2005

A meeting between Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz September 3 did little to advance the UN's objective of getting weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

In a CNN interview Annan said that "at this stage I cannot say they've (Iraq) taken a decision to allow inspectors. They would want to have an assurance that things would be different this time."

"Also the fact that there's a threat of military action, (Tariq Aziz) is not sure what difference allowing the inspectors would make," the secretary general added.
State Dept - Washington File, published 09-03-2002

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says President Bush will lay out evidence of the threat posed by the regime of Iraq's Saddam Hussein in the coming weeks, including a briefing of key legislative leaders at a morning meeting at the White House September 4 and testimony to be delivered at upcoming congressional hearings.

"What the president wants to do, and will do in his own time, is to provide information he feels is important with respect to any judgment he decides to make," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing September 3. As yet, President Bush has not made a final judgment on how to deal with Iraq, he said.
State Dept - Washington File, published 09-03-2002

Q: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned Congress several times, as you already have said, that's coming back today and tomorrow. And of course you and the president have also said that you believe Congress should be consulted. But do you think it's prudent that you should seek the consent of Congress? Do you think it's a wise idea for Congress to approve an action before it might be decided?

Rumsfeld: The -- under our Constitution, Article 1 is the Congress of the United States, the people's branch. They're there for a reason, and there is no question but that they have a role. What that role is, is a subject for lawyers; how they want to execute it is a subject for Congress; how the president wants to interact with them is a subject for the executive branch. And that will all play out over the coming days and weeks. But there's no question but that the Congress has an important role, in my view.

Q: But not just legally whether they should give their consent, but is -- politically is prudent? And I would also wonder what General Myers thinks -- would it be valuable to have the consent of Congress, not just whether --

Rumsfeld: I think I've answered it as well as I can. I think that the exact formula that the president or the Congress prefers to take is something that will evolve in the coming days. With respect to the first part of the question, unambiguously, the Congress has a role. It's for them and the president to define it.
Dept of Defense Press Conference, published 09-03-2002

On 04 September 2002 US defense officials confirmed plans to transport a brigades’ worth of equipment --- about 70 tanks and other tracked vehicles plus additional military cargo -- to Kuwait from the United States aboard a commercial cargo vessel in late September.

[Original web page no longer available]
Voice of America, published 09-04-2002

THE PRESIDENT: ...At the appropriate time, this administration will go to the Congress to seek approval for -- necessary to deal with the [Iraqi] threat. At the same time, I will work with our friends in the world. I've invited Prime Minister Blair to come to Camp David on Saturday, and he'll -- he's coming. I've looked forward to talking with him about our mutual concerns about how to make the world more secure and safe.

Q: Let me just follow up on your opening statement. When you say you're going to seek congressional approval, does that mean, in effect, Congress will have veto authority over your plan to oust Saddam Hussein?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm confident we will be able to -- I'll be able to work with Congress to deal with this threat to the American people. And that's what I meant.
President Discusses Foreign Policy with Congressional Leaders, published 09-04-2002

"About 100 American and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq's major western air defence installation yesterday in the biggest single operation over the country for four years.

The raid appeared to be a prelude to the type of special forces operations that would have to begin weeks before a possible American-led war. It was launched two days before a war summit between President George W Bush and Tony Blair in America....

The raid seemed designed to destroy air defences to allow easy access for special forces helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia to hunt down Scud missiles before a possible war within the next few months....

In a further sign that America was preparing for war, a Pentagon official confirmed that heavy armour, ammunition and other equipment had been moved to Kuwait from huge stores in Qatar."

[In another story from The Nation (below) please visit here.]

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan.

Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.
The Telegraph, published 09-06-2002

"...a closed-door meeting on Sept. 5, 2002, with George Tenet, in which the Senate Intelligence Committee sought to clarify whether the increasingly dire threat painted by Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials was real, and whether it justified a preemptive invasion. Graham and senators Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., assumed an NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] on Iraq must already exist, given the gravity of an invasion. (Such assessments can be initiated either by the White House, Congress or the CIA). And the senators asked to see it. Tenet and other intelligence agency representatives replied with 'blank stares,' Graham wrote. The Democratic senators demanded that Tenet get to work immediately on the report.

Three weeks later, Tenet turned over to the congressional intelligence committees a 90-page classified NIE that minimized the view, held by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Department of Energy, that Saddam had probably not reconstituted a nuclear program. The NIE buried their many caveats in footnotes even as it also concluded that Saddam had shown little desire to attack the United States, and that Iraq had few contacts with al-Qaida. Graham pushed for its declassification. He got it on Oct. 4, 2002, only a week before the Congress voted on the Iraq war resolution.

The declassified report was 25 pages long and appeared to have been produced in advance, judging by the slick graphics and maps that accompanied it, Graham said. Gone were the caveats that the classified version had included, and gone were the assessments that Saddam didn't appear interested in attacking the United States. What was left was 'a vivid and terrifying case for war,' Graham wrote."

[While you may obtain a "Free Pass" to the Salon article, you may also view it here.]
Salon, published 09-17-2004

Q. Is there a possibility of a military operation short of full-scale invasion, and could that be launched in November?

A. Yes, and we could be seeing the start of such operations already to "prepare the battlefield," with the coalition strikes on Iraqi's major western air defense installation, the H-3 airfield on Sept. 5. The objective of the strike could have been to destroy air defenses to allow easy access for Special Operations helicopters to fly into Iraq via Jordan or Saudi Arabia as part of a critical primary mission to hunt down Scuds. Knocking out Iraqi radars at H-3 also would allow allied aircraft mounting major raids on Iraq a clear route into the country. This latest strike was an unprecedented event, in that all previous strikes have been against air defense sights in the southern areas of Iraq.

It was followed by a Sept. 7 strike on an Iraqi Silkworm anti-missile site near Basra, in the extreme southeastern area of Iraq. That strike could have been in response to attempts by a targeting radar of the Chinese-made Silkworm anti-ship missile to lock on to a U.S. ship transferring arms and equipment from Al Udeid Base to Kuwait. American aircraft also attacked a military communications center at Al-Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Taken together, these strikes seem like a notable escalation of operations over the no-fly zones, and there probably is more to come in the near future. Strike operations in Iraq could incrementally be expanded by the considerable forces already in the area throughout the next several months before a full-scale invasion.

[Original webpage not archived on Center for Defense Information site]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

About 100 US Special Forces members and more than 50 Central Intelligence Agency officers have been operating in small groups inside Iraq...., searching for Scud missile launchers, monitoring oil fields, marking minefield sites, and using lasers to help US pilots bomb Iraqi air-defense systems, according to intelligence officials and military analysts who have talked with people on the teams.

The operations, which also have included small numbers of Jordanian, British, and Australian commandos, are considered by many analysts to be part of the opening phase of a war against Iraq, even though the Bush administration has agreed to a schedule of UN weapons inspections.

[Original web page requires paid subscription to view]
Boston Globe, published 01-05-2003

War preparations have been in full swing for months.* The Pentagon says that 60,000 troops are now in the Persian Gulf region; that number could double in coming weeks. ...

"We're bombing practically every day as we patrol the no-fly zones, taking out air defense batteries, and there are all kinds of CIA and Special Forces operations going on. So I would call it the beginning of a war,'' said Timur J. Eads, a former US special operations officer for 20 years who took part in missions inside Iraq in the 1990s.

A US intelligence official said that the Iraq missions are separate from the work of the UN inspectors, but that the two operations may be moving in parallel.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that some Special Forces members were following suspicious movements around suspected weapons sites and that information could be turned over to the UN teams. The administration refuses to do so, out of concern that the reports might be passed to Iraqi officials.

*Article was written on January 5, 2003.

[Original web page requires paid subscription to view]
Boston Globe, published 01-05-2003

Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)...from the President's home state conceded that Iraq's Saddam Hussein "is a menace, as was Libya's Muammer Qaddafi, as was Josef Stalin. But able policymakers of both parties found ways to contain such threats without starting what could become another world war."

Doggett urged Bush to "unite our country and the world to eliminate weapons of mass destruction." He added, "do not divide us by making war the first instrument of your foreign policy."

Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas, added his voice to those who spoke against pursuing war with Baghdad. Paul, a member of the House International Relations Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, cautioned that such an attack could make the United States "more vulnerable" and said, "all Iraq's Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack and our European allies object as well."

He urged Congress to "think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit, one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with."

The Texas Republican cited the warning of the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson: "'Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.'"
State Dept - Washington File, published 09-06-2002

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: . . . The point that I would emphasize to you is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability, that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Agency this morning showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapons sites to realize that...

THE PRESIDENT: AP lady.

Q Mr. President, can you tell us what conclusive evidence of any nuclear -- new evidence you have of nuclear weapons capabilities of Saddam Hussein?

THE PRESIDENT: We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right. And what we -- what we know from what has been going on there for a long period of time is not just the chemical, biological weapons capability, but we know that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, published 09-07-2002

It was followed by a Sept. 7 strike on an Iraqi Silkworm anti-missile site near Basra, in the extreme southeastern area of Iraq. That strike could have been in response to attempts by a targeting radar of the Chinese-made Silkworm anti-ship missile to lock on to a U.S. ship transferring arms and equipment from Al Udeid Base to Kuwait. American aircraft also attacked a military communications center at Al-Kut, 100 miles southeast of Baghdad.

[Original webpage not archived on Center for Defense Information site]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

There has been a sharp increase in the number of US-British air raids on Iraqi air defences over recent months in what military analysts said could be preparations for a possible attack this winter.

According to the Pentagon, the latest air strikes on Thursday targeted a command centre about 180 miles southwest of Baghdad that coordinated air defences for the whole of western Iraq. But the US military denied reports quoting British defence sources as saying that it had been the largest allied air raid in four years. Brigadier General John Rosa, the deputy operations director for the joint chiefs of staff, said that "12 airplanes dropped 25 weapons" on the target.

Nevertheless, there has been a clear increase in the frequency of air strikes on Iraq in recent months in marked contrast to the sharp decline that followed the September 11 attacks.

In August, US and British planes enforcing the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq carried out nine missile and bomb attacks against air-defence targets, the highest strike rate since May 2000. The Pentagon said that each strike had been launched in response to a threat posed to allied aircraft, often in the form of radar tracking by Iraqi air defence units.

Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a former US naval commander in the Gulf and now a senior fellow at the Centre for Defence Information, said: "This is something you do to prepare the battlefield. The more you can chip away at their defences, the less you have to do later."
The Guardian, published 09-07-2002

Page two of five page article.

On the morning of Sept. 7, 2002, Blair left London on a transatlantic flight to see Bush at Camp David. The president had invited him to come for dinner and a three-hour talk on Iraq. Blair would be on the ground for about six hours -- an unusually short stay.

In Blair's conversations with Bush, it was increasingly clear to the prime minister how committed Bush was to action. But as Blair's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, had signaled to his counterpart, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in a meeting the month before, the message from the British in essence was: If you are really thinking about war and you want us to be a player, we cannot be unless you go to the United Nations. Powell also favored a U.N. resolution, and he knew this would add to the pressure on Bush, who absolutely had to have Blair on board. ...

Blair said he had to be able to show that he had tried the United Nations and sought a new resolution requiring the readmission of weapons inspectors inside Iraq. "He's there to make the case for a resolution," Bush recalled in an interview in December. He told Blair he had decided to go to the United Nations, and it seemed he would seek a new resolution.

Blair was relieved. ...

"I'm with you," the prime minister replied, looking Bush back in the eye, pledging flat out to commit British military force if necessary, the critical promise Bush had been seeking.

"We want you to be part of this," he told the prime minister. Blair's resolve had made a real impression, the president later recalled.

[For the same article, plus the 4 others in this series, please visit Global Policy Forum

BLITZER: Based on what you know right now, how close is Saddam Hussein's government -- how close is that government to developing a nuclear capability?

RICE: You will get different estimates about precisely how close he is. We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into Iran, for instance -- into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to -- high-quality aluminum tools that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.

We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought, maybe six months from a crude nuclear device.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't what (sic) the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
CNN - Late Edition, published 09-08-2002

SECRETARY POWELL: There is no doubt that he has chemical weapons stocks… With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons and he is probably continuing to try to develop more… With respect to nuclear weapons, we are quite confident that he continues to try to pursue the technology that would allow him to develop a nuclear weapon… So there's no question that he has these weapons, but even more importantly, he is striving to do even more, to get even more.
State Dept - Transcript of interview with Fox News Sunday, published 09-08-2002

VICE PRES. CHENEY: What we have seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest, if you will, if I can put it in those terms, is that he now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium.

Specifically aluminum tubes. There's a story in the New York Times this morning --this is --and I want to attribute it to the Times. I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources. But it is now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb. This is a technology he was working on back say before the Gulf War.

And one of the reasons it's of concern to him is we know about a particular shipment --we have intercepted that --we don't know what else, what other avenues he may be taking out there, what he may have already acquired… So we have to deal with these bits and pieces and try to put them together into a mosaic to understand what's going on. But we do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.
NBC - Meet the Press, published 09-08-2002

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you then. Tell me about the seriousness of the problem. We read in the "New York Times" today a story that says that Saddam Hussein is closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. Does he have nuclear weapons? Is there a smoking gun here?

RUMSFELD: The smoking gun is an interesting phrase. It implies that what we're doing here is law enforcement, that what we're looking for is a case that we can take into a court of law and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem with that is, the way one gains absolutely certainty as to whether a dictator like Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon is if he uses it, and that's a little late. It's not late if you're interested in protecting rights of the defendant in a court of law, but it's a quite different thing if one thinks about it.

I was musing over the fact that there are so many books that have been written -- why England slept; Pearl Harbor, what happened, why didn't we know? Right now on Capitol Hill, the members of the House and the Senate are trying -- are looking, having investigations on September 11 of last year and trying to connect the dots, as they say, trying to piece together what might have been known and why didn't we know it and why weren't we able to connect the dots.

[Note to readers: The link below is Part One of the hour-long program. Part Two is here but consists of interviews with other guests.]
CBS - Face the Nation, published 09-08-2002

Q: So if inspectors went in tomorrow and somehow found all of his weapons development programs and were able to magically make them go away, that wouldn't be enough?

Rumsfeld: The Congress' regime change legislation would still stand, and obviously when one thinks about the extent to which the people there were oppressed, and the conventional threat Saddam Hussein poses to its neighbors, those problems would still be there but the world would be a lot safer place if, as you say, it all magically happened. But I don't know why a hypothetical question like that is terribly useful because it isn't going to happen.
Dept of Defense Press Release, published 09-09-2002

The U.S. intelligence community has received information, based on debriefings of a senior al Qaeda operative, of possible terrorists attacks timed to coincide with the anniversary of the September 11th attacks on the United States. Information indicates that al Qaeda cells have been established in several South Asian countries in order to conduct car-bomb and other attacks on U.S. facilities....

The U.S. intelligence community has also received information that one or more individuals in the Middle East are preparing for a suicide attack, or attacks, against U.S. interests. At this time, we have no specific information as to where these attacks might occur....

The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the most likely attacks of al Qaeda attacks -- the most likely targets of al Qaeda attacks are the transportation and energy sectors, and facilities or gatherings that would be recognized worldwide as symbols of American power or security. Examples of such symbols are U.S. military facilities, U.S. embassies, and national monuments.

[This High (Orange) Threat level remains in effect until Sep. 24, 2002 when it was lowered to Elevated (Yellow)]
Director Ridge, Attorney General Ashcroft Discuss Threat Level (HSAS), published 09-10-2002

"I'm deeply concerned about a leader who has ignored all — who ignored the United Nations for all these years, has refused to conform to resolution after resolution after resolution; who has weapons of mass destruction," Bush said Tuesday in a visit to Afghanistan's embassy in Washington. "And the battlefield has now shifted to America."
USA Today, published 09-10-2002

On September 11, the U.S. House of Representative's Armed Services Committee held the first of several planned hearings on Iraq, listening to expert testimony from David Kay and Richard Spertzel, two senior members of the United Nations inspection team that first uncovered Iraq's illicit nuclear and biological weapons programs in the 1990s.

"Before the administration and the Congress can decide on the best course of action, we must clearly understand the threat," Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat from Missouri) noted at the outset of the hearing....

[Dr. David] Kay [chief nuclear weapons from 1991-1992 for UNSCOM] believes Iraq does not yet possess a nuclear bomb, but based on his reading of Iraq's procurement activities, they are well on their way to producing devices in three to six years - or even "six months if they have the fissile material."
State Dept - Washington File, published 09-12-2002

...and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence....

Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year....

But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.

...The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.
President's Address to United Nations General Assembly, published 09-12-2002

The U.S. military command responsible for operations in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf will send 600 personnel from its base in Tampa to a multibillion-dollar air base in Qatar in November to test a headquarters that could be used to oversee a war against Iraq, defense officials said yesterday.
Washington Post, published 09-12-2002

Summary: Baker explains in very detailed terms all the aspects of the plan for war with Iraq. Interveiwed six months prior to the start of the war this interveiw is extremely prophetic. A must read.

[Original article no longer available on Center for Defense Information site. Google cached page also here.]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephan H. Baker, published 09-12-2002

The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar just outside the capital of Doha has the longest runway in the Gulf, (15,000 feet) and is 700 miles from Baghdad. This will be a key base for fighter/bomber aircraft, air-to-air refueling KC-10 and KC-135 tankers and JSTARS reconnaissance aircraft. The modern, $1.7 billion-dollar installation has state-of-the-art reinforced hangers that can accommodate close to 100 aircraft. Facilities at the base have been significantly upgraded to include the latest Theater Battle Management Core System communications and computer infrastructure that replicates the Command/Control and Intelligence capabilities at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Expect Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. CENTCOM commander, to run the war from this base.

[Original article no longer available on Center for Defense Information site. Google cached page also here.]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

Incirlik Air Base in the southern part of Turkey is 570 miles away from Baghdad, and an extremely key strategic asset to the United States. The base already has several thousand military personnel assigned to support Air Force fighter-bombers. Britain's Royal Air Force has additional air assets at the base. Expect near 100 aircraft to be stationed there for any offensive operations into Iraq.

[Original article no longer available on Center for Defense Information site. Google cached page also here.]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

Additionally, over 350,000 tons of equipment has already been pre-positioned ashore throughout the region. (This could include pre-positioning combat equipment and air defense systems in bases supporting Afghanistan operations such as Kandahar.) The armaments are stored in 37 climate-controlled warehouses, each averaging 60,000 square feet at Camp Doha, just west of Kuwait City. The equipment includes chemical-biological suits and detection equipment, M-1A2 main battle tanks, M-2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and Paladin 155mm howitzers, plus Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, armored command vehicles, bulldozers, trucks and Humvees. Currently there is at least two brigades' worth of equipment, plus some division headquarters material - enough to support about 15,000 troops in Kuwait. However, there have been low-profile equipment moves right through the past year, and thus weapons stockpiles may be higher than the confirmed figures above.

[Original article no longer available on Center for Defense Information site. Google cached page also here.]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephen H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

Current U.S. capabilities consist of as many as 40,000 American personnel already in the area. U.S. presence in the vicinity of Iraq has allegedly increased incrementally throughout the summer. As many as 8,000 troops could be in Kuwait, approximately 4,000 in Saudi Arabia, 4,000 in Bahrain, 3,000 in Turkey, and another 5,000 around the region in places such as Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Another 20,000 Marines and Sailors are on ships in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean areas. Some 200-plus land-based combat aircraft and 140 sea-based aircraft aboard the two carriers are in the area and at the highest state of readiness.

60,000 more troops and light equipment could arrive in two weeks through heavy utilization of jumbo C-5 Galaxy's and C-17's augmented by commercially leased aircraft to operating areas in theatre. (There are 126 C-5 cargo carriers and 84 C-17's in the U.S. inventory. Troop-configured C-5s can carry 300 personnel; C-17's carry 100.)

The additional troops would fly from the United States to "marry up" with the Army brigade sets of equipment in Kuwait and Qatar. The pre-positioned afloat equipment at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean for U.S. Marines and Army units would also be used and moved forward to the loading areas in the Gulf and possibly the Red Sea.

[Original article no longer available on Center for Defense Information site. Google cached page also here.]
Center for Defense Information - Interview with Rear Admiral Stephan H. Baker , published 09-12-2002

There is a "sense of urgency" in President Bush's request that members of the United Nations Security Council "act deliberately and decisively" against Iraq, said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage September 13 on NBC's Today Show.

According to Armitage, President Bush wants the Security Council "to find that Saddam Hussein and his regime are in material breach of all the existing resolutions," and to give Saddam Hussein the choice to either "disarm and destroy his weapons and allow...intrusive inspections or choose another route."

Asked if the administration would accept a resolution passed by the Security Council to negotiate terms for inspectors to go back into Iraq, Armitage said that the United States is "not very inclined to negotiate the terms." ...

Armitage added that if a resolution is to be passed, then "it's got to be a resolution with teeth" and the deadline should be "days and weeks and certainly not months."
State Dept - Washington File, published 09-13-2002

A senior Defense Department official says Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if the Iraqis acquire fissile material and decide "that's what they're going to do with it."

The official told reporters at the Pentagon September 13 that Iraq has not lost any of its technical expertise or documentation since the Persian Gulf war more than a decade ago. If the Iraqis acquire the requisite material tomorrow then, he said, "it's a question of …just how quickly" they can fabricate and assemble nuclear weapons. "We're measuring, probably, in the order of less than a year to put these kind of things together," he added.

[This briefing is "on background" which means that the Senior Offical does not want to be publically identified.]
Dept of Defense Press Briefing, published 09-13-2002

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the Iraqi military force structure is much weaker than it was during Operation Desert Storm 11 years ago.

During a September 13 speech at the National Press Club, Air Force General Richard Myers said that although the Iraqis are "much weaker than they were back in the early '90s" they have also found ways around the U.N.’s Oil-For-Food Program to improve air defenses, military communications and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. As an example, he said, the Iraqis have taken trucks that were approved under the Oil-For-Food Program to help the Iraqi people and turned them, instead, into missile carriers or conveyances for armored vehicles.

Myers said there is "clear and compelling evidence" that not only has Saddam Hussein ignored all the U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on him to disarm his WMD programs, but "has actually enhanced his capabilities in those areas." Myers also said there is evidence that the Iraqis have "mobile production capability for chemical and biological weapons."
Remarks by General Myers at National Press Club, published 09-19-2002

Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.
Radio Address by the President to the Nation , published 09-14-2002

The Saudi foreign minister said Sunday the kingdom would be "obliged to follow through" if the United States needed bases in the kingdom to attack Iraq under U.N. authority.

The comments to CNN by Prince Saud al-Faisal would mark a dramatic change in Saudi policy. In an interview last month with The Associated Press, Saud declared that U.S. facilities in the desert kingdom would be off limits for an attack on Iraq.

Last week, Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher of Egypt, among the most influential Arab states, said his government would support a U.S. strike on Iraq if it were under U.N. auspices.
USA Today, published 09-15-2002

MR. RUSSERT: Will the United Nations Security Council adopt a resolution which puts the inspectors back into Iraq, guaranteed unfettered access; if it's denied by Saddam Hussein, followed by all necessary means, including military action?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we'll have to see; but you've certainly laid out the elements that I think have to be in a resolution. One, a clear recognition that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of all the obligations that he entered into as a result of these many UN resolutions. The second element of any resolution has to be action that he must take in order to try to deal with this breach. And then I believe a third element of any resolution or combination of resolutions has to be what the UN will do, what the international community will do, if he does not act in the way that has been demanded by the United Nations.

So this is a test for the United Nations, as the President has said. Everybody said, take it to the international community; and that's exactly what President Bush did last Thursday.
State Dept Transcript - NBC's Meet The Press, published 09-15-2002

...Somebody said, well, you know, they don't have a nuclear weapon. I said, well, the most dangerous thing -- and we know they're trying to get one -- the most dangerous thing would be to find out they had a nuclear weapon after they developed one.
President Stresses Budget Discipline and Fiscal Restraint, published 09-16-2002

Rumsfeld: If we wait for a smoking gun in this instance, it obviously would be after the fact. You'd find it after the fact. You'd find it after lethal weapons were used against the United States, our friends and allies. And that's a little late when you're dealing with capabilities of the lethality that represent these capabilities.
Dept of Defense News Briefing, published 09-16-2002

Q: General, we've been noting the continued strikes in Iraq in both the Northern and Southern no-fly zone. Military -- Pentagon officials have been portraying these as essentially routine. But the toll continues to mount as we look at the targets that have struck in the South. Can you still say that this is a routine level of activity, or has there been an increase in the U.S. response...has there been an escalation?

Pace: ...What has changed a little bit is the tactics that are being employed in response to that so that the air defense network in Iraq, which includes the radars and the buildings that have the command nodes in them and the airfields themselves, the response to that by the commanders on the ground has been to go after more of the targets like communications buildings, that are not easily moved, and striking those. So instead of going at the specific radar that was involved, which can easily be moved between the time the missile was fired and the time we're able to counter-strike, they're picking on targets that are still part of that continuum of air defense but that are not going to be (easily/able to be ?) moved and can be struck readily and provide appropriate level of response to that kind of provocation.

Q: Did the recent strikes in the last weeks and months -- have you succeeded in degrading Iraq's air defenses because of that? And does that, in fact, lay the groundwork if there's potential military action against Iraq in the future?

Pace: The recent strikes have degraded the air defense capabilities. ...

Q: General Pace, you didn't really answer whether -- is that laying the groundwork for an Iraqi strike? In other words, why the change on this? Some might say this was just laying the groundwork

Rumsfeld: Well, it can't hurt. I directed it.

Q: Why did you direct it?

Rumsfeld: Because it seemed right at the time. ...

Q: But is this laying the groundwork for Iraq? That's the question. ...

Q: When did you order the change?

Q: When did you order this? When did this change take place, Mr. Secretary?

Rumsfeld: Hmm.

Q: Now? (Laughter.)

Rumsfeld: Less than a year -- less than a year and more than a week. (Laughter.) I think less than six months and more than a month.

Q: Okay.

Rumsfeld: But I can't remember. I don't keep track of all -- I don't keep notes.

Q: Can you take my question, please?

Q: Could someone take that question and get back to us?

Q: General, do you remember?

Pace: I remember it happening since I've been here, which was 1 October last year.

Rumsfeld: (Laughs.)

Pace: Which is almost a year now. But I don't remember.

Note to reader: We are unaware of whether Pace or Rumsfeld "got back" to the reporters regarding the date that tactics were ordered to be changed. If you have definitive information regarding that date, we encourage you to contact us at timeline@downingstreetmemo.com

[A summary of the News Briefing with Donald Rumsfeld and General Pace can be read here.]
Dept of Defense News Briefing, published 09-16-2002