Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack

[gldstwmn]

I know - and again so there is no confusion - I will never vote for W. I just do not think Kerry is very different when it comes to the war on terror. I do think Kerry may have been able to figure out a way to make the French and Russians comply with us - perhaps hiding their, along with the head of the U.N., openly taking bribes from SH in the form of reduced price oil. So, that would have been a plus on the making America not so hated outside of the Middle East front. But, the end result is the same in that we would have invaded Iraq :shrug:

Apparently the Kofi Annan, France and Russia weren't the only ones in on the scam:

(excerpt from a long article)

However, it is not only UN officials who could be embarrassed by the oil-for-food corruption scandal.

In November 2000, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that while Dick Cheney was its CEO, the Halliburton oil services company engaged in illegal business dealings with Saddam Hussein’s regime under the UN oil-for-food program, and assisted his regime to earn an extra $1 billion that year through selling oil on the black market.

These deals were being carried out by Halliburton at the same time as Cheney and his associates in the Project for a New American Century — Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Luti — were lobbying the Clinton administration to invade Iraq and open the way to US oil companies plundering Iraq’s huge oil resources.

“Most American companies were blacklisted [by Iraq]�, a UN diplomat with the oil-for-food program told the February 16 New Yorker magazine. “It’s rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top.�

It would certainly not be beyond Halliburton executives to have used bribery to gain contracts with Hussein’s regime. In May 2003, Halliburton admitted that one of its subsidiaries had paid millions of dollars to a Nigerian official in 2001 in return for tax breaks. In early February this year, the US Justice Department began a criminal investigation into claims that Halliburton was involved in a $180 million bribery scheme to secure a contract from Nigerian officials for construction of a natural gas plant during the late 1990s, when Cheney was running the company.

[dissention]

Apparently the Kofi Annan, France and Russia weren't the only ones in on the scam:

(excerpt from a long article)

However, it is not only UN officials who could be embarrassed by the oil-for-food corruption scandal.

In November 2000, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported that while Dick Cheney was its CEO, the Halliburton oil services company engaged in illegal business dealings with Saddam Hussein’s regime under the UN oil-for-food program, and assisted his regime to earn an extra $1 billion that year through selling oil on the black market.

These deals were being carried out by Halliburton at the same time as Cheney and his associates in the Project for a New American Century — Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Luti — were lobbying the Clinton administration to invade Iraq and open the way to US oil companies plundering Iraq’s huge oil resources.

“Most American companies were blacklisted [by Iraq]�, a UN diplomat with the oil-for-food program told the February 16 New Yorker magazine. “It’s rather surprising to find Halliburton doing business with Saddam. It would have been very much a senior-level decision, made by the regime at the top.�

It would certainly not be beyond Halliburton executives to have used bribery to gain contracts with Hussein’s regime. In May 2003, Halliburton admitted that one of its subsidiaries had paid millions of dollars to a Nigerian official in 2001 in return for tax breaks. In early February this year, the US Justice Department began a criminal investigation into claims that Halliburton was involved in a $180 million bribery scheme to secure a contract from Nigerian officials for construction of a natural gas plant during the late 1990s, when Cheney was running the company.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Wow. I can't wait to see Rove's face on election night.

Thanks for posting that, it was a great read.

[dissention]

I'm sure it's one of Sheriff Georgie's favorite toys. :lol:

Yeah, but little boys aren't supposed to play with guns.

I find keeping this little memento not only macabre, but a bit sickening.

[gldstwmn]

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Wow. I can't wait to see Rove's face on election night.

Thanks for posting that, it was a great read.

My question is, are they going to let him skate on this like everything else? What's it gonna take?

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, but little boys aren't supposed to play with guns.

I find keeping this little memento not only macabre, but a bit sickening.

Since Saddam hasn't been tried, shouldn't this be a key piece of evidence? BTW, the pResident tells everyone the gun wasn't loaded when they found Saddam. Ponder that one for a moment.

[dissention]

My question is, are they going to let him skate on this like everything else? What's it gonna take?

Of course they're going to let it skate. The press are the biggest Bush cheerleaders. NBC news is owned by GM. Faux News is owned by Murdoch. ABC is owned by Disney, which is run by Eisner, the man who will not allow the distribution of Moore's movie for fear of not getting tax breaks. And CNN has such a low number of viewers that they're trying to emulate Faux News in all of their programs. Just look at that shill Paula Zahn and that sow Judy Woodruff, not to mention Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer (yes, his name is Leslie). It won't be reported, unless ChimpCo denounced conservatism and embraced liberalism.

[strandinthewind]

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Wow. I can't wait to see Rove's face on election night.

Thanks for posting that, it was a great read.


Now Now - you cannot persecute one you do not like for something and then turn your head when someone who agrees with you does the same thing. In other words, if we are to hold Cheney and Halliburton accountable, then you have to hold France, Russia, and the UN similarly accountable. Again, I think France, Russia, and the UN did not lift a finger to help prevent the invasion of Iraq because they were being bribed by SH. If they had come on board, I think the bloodshed could have been avoided. Yet, they did not. So . . . .

[dissention]

Now Now - you cannot persecute one you do not like for something and then turn your head when someone who agrees with you does the same thing. In other words, if we are to hold Cheney and Halliburton accountable, then you have to hold France, Russia, and the UN similarly accountable. Again, I think France, Russia, and the UN did not lift a finger to help prevent the invasion of Iraq because they were being bribed by SH. If they had come on board, I think the bloodshed could have been avoided. Yet, they did not. So . . . .

Misinterpretations abound, babe.

No one's persecutin' anyone. I simply find it ironic that this presidency has the gall to criticize France, Russia, and the UN for scamming from the oil for food program, yet they did the very same thing. It smacks of hypocrisy. And I find it amazing that someone can hold those countries responsible for what this abomination of an administration did. That's utter ****, Jason. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Misinterpretations abound, babe.

No one's persecutin' anyone. I simply find it ironic that this presidency has the gall to criticize France, Russia, and the UN for scamming from the oil for food program, yet they did the very same thing. It smacks of hypocrisy. And I find it amazing that someone can hold those countries responsible for what this abomination of an administration did. That's utter ****, Jason. :laugh:

Again, a few months earlier, Russia and France, once again, signed a UN resolution authorizing use of force if SH did not comply. They did this in an effort to make him comply with proving he had no WMD, which the world thought he had - BTW - Clinton, who also ignored the UN when it came to invading countried, also signed a similar doc authorizing the US to use force against the non-compliant Iraq (which we found then in material breach) several years earlier which Kerry helped draft and get through Congress. The UN recognized that a united front may convince SH and thus avoid a war. Then, when called to act on the doc they signed, Russia, France, and the UN "suddenly" did not want to do anything but maintain the status quo. Again - why? I assert a compelling reason could be they were being bribed and the status quo maintained the source of their blood money. But and again, if you think that if SH would not have backed down if Fance and Russia (two countries that have commited some of the worst human rights violations EVER and have NEVER hesitated to destroy lives in the name of political conquest) fulfilled their obligations they initiated via the UN and presented a united face going to war, then we can argue all night and never agree :laugh: I cannot imagine anyone thinking SH would not have backed down against that -- I mean otherwise why the bribes :shrug: But, you seemingly are hell bent on spinning this war as something W just up and thought of as a way to make money and to fulfill some vendetta, when that was just not the case. Again, the world had been threatening it for 11 years and the world had been shooting missles with no help from W at SH's planes during that time. Is your argument that the world should have kept starving the country (oh excuse me using starvation as a tactic to accept a bribe :rolleyes: ) and inspected for another 11 years and all the while prey he did not really have the WMD everyone agreed he had :shrug: Again, I am not saying I am happy we went to war - I am not. I am just calling BS on the crazy liberals shrieking like harpies that the entire war was W's doing, when the facts clearly do not support that :cool:

[dissention]

Again, a few months earlier, Russia and France, once again, signed a UN resolution authorizing use of force if SH did not comply. They did this in an effort to make him comply with proving he had no WMD, which the world thought he had - BTW - Clinton, who also ignored the UN when it came to invading countried, also signed a similar doc authorizing the US to use force against the non-compliant Iraq (which we found then in material breach) several years earlier which Kerry helped draft and get through Congress. The UN recognized that a united front may convince SH and thus avoid a war. Then, when called to act on the doc they signed, Russia, France, and the UN "suddenly" did not want to do anything but maintain the status quo. Again - why? I assert a compelling reason could be they were being bribed and the status quo maintained the source of their blood money. But and again, if you think that if SH would not have backed down if Fance and Russia (two countries that have commited some of the worst human rights violations EVER and have NEVER hesitated to destroy lives in the name of political conquest) fulfilled their obligations they initiated via the UN and presented a united face going to war, then we can argue all night and never agree :laugh: I cannot imagine anyone thinking SH would not have backed down against that -- I mean otherwise why the bribes :shrug: But, you seemingly are hell bent on spinning this war as something W just up and thought of as a way to make money and to fulfill some vendetta, when that was just not the case. Again, the world had been threatening it for 11 years and the world had been shooting missles with no help from W at SH's planes during that time. Is your argument that the world should have kept starving the country (oh excuse me using starvation as a tactic to accept a bribe :rolleyes: ) and inspected for another 11 years and all the while prey he did not really have the WMD everyone agreed he had :shrug: Again, I am not saying I am happy we went to war - I am not. I am just calling BS on the crazy liberals shrieking like harpies that the entire war was W's doing, when the facts clearly do not support that :cool:

The "bribes" dated back to '96. They weren't something new from the last few years. We can argue about what the UN knew and what they didn't know, but the real fact of the matter is that Shrub's case for an Iraq war was weak to begin with. Even if they weren't taking bribes, I still believe that they would have voted no on using force. There was no real proof that he still had the WMDs that we gave him and they had more information than we'll ever have on the subject. Everything is speculation about their true motives, just as his possession of WMDs was specualtion on our part since inspections hadn't turned up a thing.

I've never said that this war was a vendetta. Yeah, Hussein tried to kill his daddy, big whoop. I'd bet that was the furthest thing from his mind when he decided to commit war crimes. But it's so f*cking obvious what this war was really about and you simply won't acknowledge it. Oil was the case and either you're naive or won't admit it. They planned on invading before the inauguration, then used the tragedy of 9/11 to go through with it. They lied about WMDs, they lied about their motives over and over and over, they lied and said that Saddam was involved with 9/11 attacks. Then, they illegally used funds that were meant for Afghanistan to draft an Iraq war plan. Now, the big question is, why were they so hell bent on invading Iraq before Bush even took office? 9/11 hadn't happened. There was no excuse for it. And if you expect me to believe that they believed the WMD intel was correct, I have a swamp in Florida to sell ya. They even lied to us about the UN resolution and said that it gave them powers that it didn't. I mean, it's just a constant cycle of bull****, and for what? To get Saddam's supposed weapons? To save the "brown people"? Gimme a break. It's bad enough that Bush Sr. is the one who killed the Kurds back in the early nineties. "Rise up and revolt!" What a moron. He handed their lives over to Saddam on a silver platter and never lifted a finger to help them. NOT ONE. And, ironically, they were killed with the very weapons that Reagan gave him. And, to be brutally honest, that really was the last time Saddam committed crimes against humanity on such a grand scale. Believe what you want, but the facts don't back up this war and they never will.

You're right about one thing, though. It wasn't all Bush's doing. It was Powell's (Powell Doctrine my bleeding ass), Rummy's, Rove's, Minute Rice's, Wolfie's, Asscroft's, the lsit will go on forever. Just as you find my beliefs delusional, I find yours to be. They're crazier than any liberals harping any day of the week.

PS: You really need to read Woodward's book, Jason.

[strandinthewind]

The "bribes" dated back to '96. They weren't something new from the last few years. We can argue about what the UN knew and what they didn't know, but the real fact of the matter is that Shrub's case for an Iraq war was weak to begin with. Even if they weren't taking bribes, I still believe that they would have voted no on using force. There was no real proof that he still had the WMDs that we gave him and they had more information than we'll ever have on the subject. Everything is speculation about their true motives, just as his possession of WMDs was specualtion on our part since inspections hadn't turned up a thing.

I've never said that this war was a vendetta. Yeah, Hussein tried to kill his daddy, big whoop. I'd bet that was the furthest thing from his mind when he decided to commit war crimes. But it's so f*cking obvious what this war was really about and you simply won't acknowledge it. Oil was the case and either you're naive or won't admit it. They planned on invading before the inauguration, then used the tragedy of 9/11 to go through with it. They lied about WMDs, they lied about their motives over and over and over, they lied and said that Saddam was involved with 9/11 attacks. Then, they illegally used funds that were meant for Afghanistan to draft an Iraq war plan. Now, the big question is, why were they so hell bent on invading Iraq before Bush even took office? 9/11 hadn't happened. There was no excuse for it. And if you expect me to believe that they believed the WMD intel was correct, I have a swamp in Florida to sell ya. They even lied to us about the UN resolution and said that it gave them powers that it didn't. I mean, it's just a constant cycle of bull****, and for what? To get Saddam's supposed weapons? To save the "brown people"? Gimme a break. It's bad enough that Bush Sr. is the one who killed the Kurds back in the early nineties. "Rise up and revolt!" What a moron. He handed their lives over to Saddam on a silver platter and never lifted a finger to help them. NOT ONE. And, ironically, they were killed with the very weapons that Reagan gave him. And, to be brutally honest, that really was the last time Saddam committed crimes against humanity on such a grand scale. Believe what you want, but the facts don't back up this war and they never will.

You're right about one thing, though. It wasn't all Bush's doing. It was Powell's (Powell Doctrine my bleeding ass), Rummy's, Rove's, Minute Rice's, Wolfie's, Asscroft's, the lsit will go on forever. Just as you find my beliefs delusional, I find yours to be. They're crazier than any liberals harping any day of the week.

PS: You really need to read Woodward's book, Jason.

I did read it and as Woodward says, it hurts W as much as it helps him, etc.

Also, I said few months ago that we would not be there but for oil. AND - I do not have a huge problem with that. If those oil fields were destroyed, half of the world would die from starvation. Yet people refuse to acknowledge that AND that reason does not obviate or invalidate the whole WMD issue. But, this brings me to my point again, W was not alone in the boat to invade Iraq. I mean for your theory to work, then the entire rest of the world via the UN agreed to invade for oil. I guess they all thought they could get away with lying about the existence of WMD and they all perpetuated the ruse by allowing the no fly zones to continue for all that time. Yep, they all thought "if we continue this, then when W takes office (which he BARELY won), we can allow him and only him to then and only then to go to war so the people that contributed to his campaign will make money." Russia and France must certainly have thought that - that is why they loaned Iraq billions in the 90's and set their companies up there. Moreover, the US is not now in control of nor will it ever be in control of the rev. from the Iraqi oilfileds and we gave Iraq BILLIONS. Yes, Halliburton and others are making money off of this. But, there were easier ways for the gov. to siphon money to them if that was the intent all along and it is not like Halliburton was in danger of going under any time soon. Morevoer, why were Clinton and a majority of the other Democrats a participant in the ruse. Surely, he would have refused to do anything in Iraq if the sole intent was for W's contributors to make money and the whole WMD thing was a ruse perpetuated by a mass conspiracy for over 11 years. Yet, Clinton supported the war. Interestingly, so did and does Kerry. Why would they be a participant in W's subplot of profit via war.

I mean oil being the sole reason for war just does not add up then you look at it from that perspective :shrug: Again, I am not saying I am happy about the way we went to war or the way it has played out. ALL I am saying is to say the entire thing was W and crewe's idea is patently false and completely unsupported.

AND A FEW MORE THINGS :laugh: -

The US did not need the UN's last resolution because in 98 Kerry helped pass a bill that authorized the Pres. to use force against Iraq, which the US Congress found in material breach of its obligation to disarm. So, the Pres. did not need to go to the UN - but he did, which was more than Clinton did.

Also, Clinton had a plan for invading Iraq and W was wise to worry about Iraq sijnce Iraq was firing on our planes in the no fly zones.

Finally, the facts are the world, not you I know, BUT THE ENTIRE WORLD VIA THE UN :laugh: thought SH had WMD. Next time, I am sending them your number so you can tell them differently without having seen the actual information :laugh:

P.S. Can ya tell I am a little cranky this evening :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind]Also, Clinton had a plan for invading Iraq and W was wise to worry about Iraq sijnce Iraq was firing on our planes in the no fly zones.
[QUOTE]

I'd be willing to bet that most administrations have a plan for invading any "enemy" countries.

[gldstwmn]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040531/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_china_4

U.S.: China Rethinking Military Strategy

Sun May 30, 9:38 PM ET

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - The speed with which U.S. ground forces captured Baghdad and the prominent role played in Iraq by U.S. commandos, have led China to rethink how it could counteract the American military in the event of a confrontation over Taiwan, the Pentagon says.

The Chinese also believe, partly from its assessment of the Bush administration's declared war on terrorism, that the United States is increasingly likely to intervene in a conflict over Taiwan or other Chinese interests, according to the Pentagon analysis.

"Authoritative commentary and speeches by senior officials suggest that U.S. actions over the past decade ... have reinforced fears within the Chinese leadership that the United States would appeal to human rights and humanitarian concerns to intervene, either overtly or covertly," said the Pentagon..

The assessments are in an annual Defense Department report to Congress on Chinese military power. The Pentagon took the unusual step of releasing the report late Saturday night.

The report said China is rethinking the concept that U.S. airpower alone is sufficient to prevail in a conflict — a concept it inferred from the 1999 air war over Kosovo, which involved no U.S. ground forces.

"The speed of coalition ground force advances and the role of special forces in (Iraq) have caused the People's Liberation Army theorists to rethink their assumptions about the value of long-range precision strikes, independent of ground forces, in any Taiwan conflict scenario," the report said.

Other aspects of the Iraq war have reinforced the Chinese belief that the United States' long-range strategy is to dominate Asia by containing the growth of Chinese power, the report said. These include recent Pentagon decisions to base long-range bombers, cruise missiles and nuclear attack submarines to the Pacific island of Guam — moves related in part to the Iraq conflict.

"China's leaders appear to have concluded that the net effect of the U.S.-led campaign (against terrorism) has been further encirclement of China," specifically by placing U.S. military forces in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian nations, and strengthening relations with Pakistan and India, concluded the Pentagon analysis.

Because China's leaders believe their military forces are not yet strong enough to compete directly with the American military, they are putting more emphasis on preventing U.S. intervention first. This includes development of what the Chinese call "assassin's mace" weapons, the Pentagon said.

The report said U.S. officials are not sure what "assassin's mace" is.

"However, the concept appears to include a range of weapon systems and technologies related to information warfare, ballistic and anti-ship cruise missiles, advanced fighters and submarines, counterspace system and air defense," according to the Pentagon.

The report said that while the concept of "assassin's mace" is not new in China, it has appeared more frequently in Chinese professional journals since 1999, particularly in the context of Taiwan, the U.S.-supported island which split from China after its communist takeover in 1949.

Beijing considers Taiwan to be Chinese territory and has threatened to take it by force.

In Beijing on Sunday, officials said President Bush (news - web sites) had reassured Chinese officials that Washington will stick to its "one-China policy" toward Taiwan. That long-standing policy says the American government recognizes Beijing as the only legitimate Chinese government, although the United States also has pledged to provide enough defensive equipment to Taiwan to assure its security.

Bush's comments to Chinese President Hu Jintao, released by China's Foreign Ministry, appeared to be an attempt to soothe Beijing's anger over Washington's decision to permit Taiwanese Vice President Annette Lu to stop in two U.S. cities before and after a Latin America tour.

The Pentagon for several years has expressed concern at China's military modernization, especially its emphasis on deploying more shorter-range ballistic missiles that can strike Taiwan.

The latest Pentagon report also said that since it last reported to Congress a year ago, China's imports of armaments have increase by 7 percent in value. These include a $1 billion deal for 24 Russian Su-30 fighter aircraft and $500 million for Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile systems.

[dissention]

I did read it and as Woodward says, it hurts W as much as it helps him, etc.

Also, I said few months ago that we would not be there but for oil. AND - I do not have a huge problem with that. If those oil fields were destroyed, half of the world would die from starvation. Yet people refuse to acknowledge that AND that reason does not obviate or invalidate the whole WMD issue. But, this brings me to my point again, W was not alone in the boat to invade Iraq. I mean for your theory to work, then the entire rest of the world via the UN agreed to invade for oil. I guess they all thought they could get away with lying about the existence of WMD and they all perpetuated the ruse by allowing the no fly zones to continue for all that time. Yep, they all thought "if we continue this, then when W takes office (which he BARELY won), we can allow him and only him to then and only then to go to war so the people that contributed to his campaign will make money." Russia and France must certainly have thought that - that is why they loaned Iraq billions in the 90's and set their companies up there. Moreover, the US is not now in control of nor will it ever be in control of the rev. from the Iraqi oilfileds and we gave Iraq BILLIONS. Yes, Halliburton and others are making money off of this. But, there were easier ways for the gov. to siphon money to them if that was the intent all along and it is not like Halliburton was in danger of going under any time soon. Morevoer, why were Clinton and a majority of the other Democrats a participant in the ruse. Surely, he would have refused to do anything in Iraq if the sole intent was for W's contributors to make money and the whole WMD thing was a ruse perpetuated by a mass conspiracy for over 11 years. Yet, Clinton supported the war. Interestingly, so did and does Kerry. Why would they be a participant in W's subplot of profit via war.

I mean oil being the sole reason for war just does not add up then you look at it from that perspective :shrug: Again, I am not saying I am happy about the way we went to war or the way it has played out. ALL I am saying is to say the entire thing was W and crewe's idea is patently false and completely unsupported.

AND A FEW MORE THINGS :laugh: -

The US did not need the UN's last resolution because in 98 Kerry helped pass a bill that authorized the Pres. to use force against Iraq, which the US Congress found in material breach of its obligation to disarm. So, the Pres. did not need to go to the UN - but he did, which was more than Clinton did.

Also, Clinton had a plan for invading Iraq and W was wise to worry about Iraq sijnce Iraq was firing on our planes in the no fly zones.

Finally, the facts are the world, not you I know, BUT THE ENTIRE WORLD VIA THE UN :laugh: thought SH had WMD. Next time, I am sending them your number so you can tell them differently without having seen the actual information :laugh:

P.S. Can ya tell I am a little cranky this evening :xoxo:

His plan was out of date and practically abandoned. You know that. And his regime change plan had nothing to do with invading the country; it was regime change from within.

Send 'em my number, too; I can take 'em all on. ;) The whole world did not think he had WMDs, that another one of the myths that gets perpetuated by this administration.

We're simply going to have to agree to disagree because both of us think we're right and no one is going to change their mind. Which is unfortunate in your case because you're delusional not to think that this was about oil. Delusional. :laugh:

PS: I still see that you're harping about Shrub being elected. Foul. :lol: He wasn't elected and if they hadn't thrown out and not counted the Gore votes, that would've been apparent. But they did and selected our president for us.

[strandinthewind]

If you can explain to me why the UN votes for 11 or so years as if SH had WMD and, if you can explain why Kerry voted to allow Clinton to use force against Iraq because SH was in material breach of his burden to prove he had disarmed from his WMD, then I will cede your point. But, you and I know you cannot. Thus, how am I being delusional. Unlike you, I am just citing the facts :shrug:

But, I know you will never admit them because to do so would void the entire Democratic platform, seriously injure John Kerry, and actually admit W did something that the D wanted to do first. In other words, you are as hard headed as I am :cool: :wavey: :laugh:

AND - bless your heart, please show me a recount of the votes that Gore put at issue that shows Gore won Florida. Until then, please once again refrain from mistating the facts :cool:

[dissention]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
UN: Iraq Had No WMD After 1994

http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=354
UN CONFIRMS NO WMD IN IRAQ

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2967598.stm
Blix criticises coalition over Iraq weapons

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=363151
US not sharing intelligence, say UK agencies

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq31dec31,0,7577124.story
UN weapons inspectors in Iraq 'have zilch' thus far

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,868839,00.html
UN inspectors fear Bush will ignore them



Not to mention the fact the the US removed 8,000 pages from the 12,000 page weapons report that Saddam submitted. You can also peruse these sites and read all about how UNMOVIC and IAEA never found a thing in 11 years. The reports are rather damning to your argument that the whole world believed he had WMDs.

http://www.unmovic.org/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Focus/IaeaIraq/index.html

Here are some choice quotes:

"We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise."

"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own analytical laboratory capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations."

"We have now commenced the process of destroying approximately 50 litres of mustard gas declared by Iraq that was being kept under UNMOVIC seal at the Muthanna site. One-third of the quantity has already been destroyed. The laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor, which we found at another site, has also been destroyed."

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

You can read the whole UNMOVIC briefing at their site. Or try this:

Extracts from UN Security Council Member Statements on 14th February 2003

Syria

FAROUK AL-SHARA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Syria, recalled that it was three months since the Council had unanimously adopted resolution 1441. Syria had joined the consensus after it had received assurances that the resolution would not be used as a pretext for waging war against Iraq. In their briefing today, the inspectors had noted the progress achieved since their last briefing. That meant that in just two weeks significant progress had been achieved. It was also significant that today Iraq had issued a decree prohibiting weapons of mass destruction in the country. That testified to the fact that inspections were accomplishing their goals, and the Council must continue to support the inspectors, allowing them sufficient time to carry out their task as prescribed in resolution 1441.

France

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of France, said that by unanimously adopting resolution 1441 (2002), the Council collectively had expressed its agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: disarmament through inspections and, should that strategy fail, consideration by the Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clear that, in the event that the inspections failed and only in that scenario, a second resolution could be justified. The question today was simple: either consider in good conscience that the disarmament via inspections was now leading to a dead-end; or that the inspections possibilities presented in resolution 1441 had still not been fully explored.

In response to that question, he said his country was convinced that the option of inspections had not been taken to the end and that it could provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq. Also, the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort. What had just been learned from the inspectors’ reports was that the inspections were producing results. Significant gains had been made in those areas identified by the chief inspectors on 27 January.

In the chemical and biological areas, he noted that the Iraqis had provided the inspectors with new documentation. They had also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programmes, in accordance with Mr. Blix’s requests. In the ballistic missile domain, the information provided by Iraq had enabled the inspectors to make progress. He knew precisely the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programmes must now be dismantled.

In the nuclear domain, he continued, useful information had been given to the IAEA on the most important points discussed by Dr. ElBaradei on 27 January: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium, and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium. Those points were at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441, which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programmes and then their elimination.

He said that real progress was becoming apparent. Iraq had agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory, and it had allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses. Also, a bill barring all activities linked to mass destruction weapons programmes was in the process of being adopted, and Iraq was to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programmes in 1991. Such progress strengthened France’s conviction that the inspections could be effective, but “we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains� –- questions had to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still had to be destroyed.

To do that, he said, the inspections must be given every chance of succeeding. His proposals submitted to the Council on 5 February were practical and concrete, and could be implemented quickly. They fell within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently did not require a new resolution. Yes, he had heard the critics, those who doubted that the inspections could be the least effective. There were those who believed that continuing them was a sort of “delaying tactic� to prevent military intervention. At the core of the debates, then, was the question of the time allowed Iraq. At stake was the Council’s credibility and sense of responsibility.

He highlighted two options: a long and difficult war, following which it would be necessary to preserve Iraq’s unity and restore stability in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force; or the day-by-day effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. No one could assert today that the path of war would be shorter than that of the inspections. No one could claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war was always the sanction of failure. The United Nations inspectors should be given the time they need for their mission to succeed. He proposed a further meeting on 14 March at the ministerial level to assess the situation.

The use of force was not justified at this time, he emphasized. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks and could bring the unity of the international community into question. That would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness. Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of that scarred and fragile region. He shared the same priority of fighting terrorism mercilessly. Given France’s present state of research and intelligence, in liaison with its allies, nothing had allowed it to establish links between Al Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. On the other hand, the impact of disputed military action on the plan to defeat terrorism must be assessed.

He said that France did not exclude the possibility that force might have to be used one day if the inspectors’ reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision. The Members of the United Nations were the guardians of an ideal and of a conscience. Their onerous responsibility and immense honour must lead them to give priority to disarmament in peace. That message came today from an old country. France, like the continent to which it belonged, had known wars, occupation and barbarity. France did not forget and knew everything it owed to the freedom-fighters who came from the United States and elsewhere. Yet, it had never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. It wished resolutely to act with all members of the international community, which, together, could build a better world.

[This statement drew applause from those present - a rare and officially discouraged event at Security Council meetings]

Chile

MARIA SOLEDAD ALVEAR, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, said that what she heard this morning showed that the Iraqi regime still had an ambivalent attitude towards the inspection process. While there were indications of progress that might indicate a decisive change in attitude towards compliance with the demands of the international community, the negative and delaying attitudes revealed an intention not to cooperate and gave rise to suspicions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Maintaining pressure on Saddam Hussein’s regime had proven to be the only mechanism capable of bringing about a certain openness and respect for the decisions of the Council. That pressure must be maintained relentlessly and without relaxation.

Second, she said, in keeping with the categorical and urgent tone of resolution 1441, the inspection process must be continued, strengthened and expanded to make it accurate and intrusive and, thus, capable of thwarting any effort at deception or evasion that the Iraqi regime might attempt. In that connection, she noted with interest the opinions of the inspectors on the usefulness and applicability of the French proposals. It was evident, however, that the time available was not infinite. The seriousness of the situation required immediate and definitive responses from the Iraqi regime to the inspectors.

Third, she said, the United Nations and the Security Council had a key role to play in the crisis. She had noted with dismay over the past month a growing division within the Council. The unity of the Council was the basis of any international action that sought to be both legitimate and effective. Only a united Council could credibly adopt the appropriate decisions for achieving the objective of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. The Council should, as invited to do so by the Secretary-General, take the necessary time to continue to seek the broadest possible consensus for achieving comprehensive solution that would restore to the Iraqi people, who had suffered for so long, the opportunity to participate fully in the international community.

China

TANG JIAXUAN, Minister for Foreign Affairs of China, said that Iraq must implement the relevant Security Council resolutions –- “strictly, comprehensively and earnestly�. He urged the Iraqi side to fully recognize the importance and urgency of the inspections and to provide more cooperation in a more proactive way. The latest visit to Baghdad by the chief inspectors had achieved some positive results. The Iraqi side had made some commitments. He asked it to make good on those promises as soon as possible. It was also necessary for the inspection work in Iraq to continue.

He said that, judging from what had been done in the recent past, the inspections had made progress and clarified quite a number of issues. New developments, however, had also been discovered in that process. The two bodies -– UNMOVIC and IAEA -- were duty-bound and justified to further the inspections with the aim of finding out the truth and fulfilling the mission conferred on them by the Council. In agreement with the majority opinion of the Council, therefore, China believed that the inspection process was working and that the inspectors should continue to be given the time they needed to carry out resolution 1441 (2002).

Spain

ANA PALACIO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain, said that as much as she had been eager to hear an affirmation of active, immediate and complete compliance with the Council’s demands by Iraq, she had been unable to find it in the inspectors’ reports. Unconditional cooperation was not forthcoming. What the Council saw was a long list of unresolved issues mentioned in Mr. Blix’s report, including VX agent, chemical bombs and anthrax. Al-Samoud missiles were longer in range than that prescribed by the Council. The Council had been also told that Iraq could produce engines for those missiles. A number of persons had refused to be interviewed privately. In a word, all the questions remained, including the most important one: was Iraq’s cooperation voluntary, or did it represent superficial concessions because time was pressing? Was it a result of international pressure, including a credible threat of the use of force?

Her remarks should be seen in the right context, she explained. Her Government appreciated the inspectors’ work and was in favour of a solution being found within the Council. Spain was aware that peace and security were assured through respect for and compliance with the Council’s resolutions. Unless there was a change of will on behalf of Saddam Hussein, the Council should discharge its responsibilities for peace and security.

United Kingdom

JACK STRAW, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said that the issue was about the authority of the Council and the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Three months ago, the Council adopted resolution 1441. At that time, everyone, including all five permanent members, knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They knew that the issue was not whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but whether it was cooperating to get rid of them.

As stated on 27 January, Iraq had failed to account for various materials and weapons, failed to make a full and complete disclosure, failed to cooperate fully and failed to meet the obligations imposed on them.

He hoped and believed that a peaceful solution was still possible, but it would require Iraq to meet the obligations imposed on it. A peaceful solution could only be achieved if the Council held its nerve, gave meaning to its word and ensured that Iraq would face the consequences of its actions. The 12 years since the adoption of resolution 687 (1991) had been a period of humiliation, as games had been played with the Council’s authority. The period after the inspectors were kicked out until 8 November was not the best in the Council’s history, since Iraq was in open defiance of the Council’s authority.

In securing a peaceful solution, he knew that the Council had only come this far by backing the diplomatic process with a credible threat of force. If the Council backed away from that, then the disarmament of Iraq and international peace and security would not get easier, but harder. The issue was not only about Iraq, but how to deal with proliferators around the world.

United States

COLIN POWELL, Secretary of State of the United States, said that the inspectors had taken up a difficult task when whey they returned to Iraq last fall. He was pleased about the improvements with respect to process, but the inspectors still did not have freedom of access around Iraq to do their job well. People had come forward for interviews, but more should be doing so, in a manner that their safety and that of their families could be protected. Decrees that should have been issued years and years ago had been issued this morning. But, did anyone think that a decree from Saddam would change the situation? Those were all tricks that were being played.

Now, he continued, new commissions were being formed to find materials the Iraqis say were not there in the first place. Did anyone believe they could succeed in finding material that was actively being denied? He commended the work of the inspectors, but what was needed was not more inspectors or more immediate access, but immediate, active, unconditional cooperation on the part of Iraq. Resolution 1441 was not about inspections; it was about the disarmament of Iraq. And it began with a clear statement that Iraq was in a material breach of its obligations. It went on to say that there should be a declaration within 30 days of all its activities –- “put it all on the table� was the request.

He said he could not continue to allow Iraq to possess weapons of mass destruction to use against its neighbours and others, or to provide to terrorist organizations. Such connections were now emerging and he could establish that they existed. The world could not wait until one of those terrible weapons showed up in one of its cities. That was what 1441 was all about. To this day, he had not seen the level of cooperation that was expected, indeed, hoped for. No one had worked harder than he had to put forward a resolution of the international community to show the Iraqi leadership that “the time was now to come clean and comply�.

More inspections was not the answer. He had not seen responsible actions on the part of Iraq, but rather “continued efforts to deceive, deny, divert, and throw us off the path�. The resolution had anticipated that kind of response. Notwithstanding improvements in process, those did not move the situation away from the central problem, namely, Iraq’s failure to comply with 1441, and more inspections or a longer inspection period would not move us away from that central problem. The threat of force must remain. It should always be a last resort, but it must be a resort. “We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq was trying to do�, he said.

The Security Council was now in a situation where Iraq’s continued non-compliance and failure to cooperate required it to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from that problem, or from the reality that it had to be faced. And, in the very near future, the Council would have to consider that point, as reluctant as it might be. So many here would rather not face the issue, but that issue, namely whether it was time to consider the serious consequences referred to in 1441, had to be faced. Those were serious weapons that could kill tens of thousands of people if they got into the wrong hands. “Our security rested upon us meeting our responsibilities and, if it came to it, invoking the serious consequences named in 1441�, he stressed.

Russia

IGOR S. IVANOV, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that today’s meeting was, in its way, a unique occasion in history. Once again, the Council was meeting at the ministerial level to seek a solution to the Iraqi question. That testified to the fact that the international community saw the United Nations as the most suitable mechanism for resolving world problems. That was why, with each additional meeting, the international community was further engaging hopes for strengthening the unity and solidarity of States in the face of a challenge.

“We should not be guided by our emotions vis-Ã*-vis a particular regimeâ€�, he continued. “Rather, we should draw our conclusions on the basis of facts.â€� For that reason, the inspectors must be provided with all possible assistance, as it was on the basis of their work that the Council could make an enlightened decision. The inspections were proceeding, as required under resolution 1441. One could not disregard the fact that during the inspectors’ last visit to Baghdad much progress had been made. It had been agreed that inspections would continue with the help of aircraft, and the number of minders would be reduced. It was also important that the Iraqis had set up two commissions to search for new materials. Those matters had been discussed as pending in the past, and now they had been resolved. Thus, in fact, there was movement in the right direction.

Continuing, he urged Iraq to increase its cooperation with inspectors. It was perfectly clear that UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the conditions for carrying out their mandates. Nobody was proposing any changes to the 1441 regime, but the majority was advocating providing the inspectors with all the support they needed. At the same time, the inspections must be more systematic and focused.

In that connection, he recalled the inspectors’ obligations to comply with the time frame, under which they had to submit the programme of work, including the list of key disarmament tasks. That would provide objective criteria for assessing cooperation by Iraq and provide an answer to the question whether Iraq represented a threat to international peace and security. One point of principle that all must answer was if the inspectors should continue their work in Iraq for the sake of a political settlement. Russia answered yes to that question. That was the position shared by an overwhelming majority of States, including members of the Security Council.

The Council had a unique opportunity to solve the problems by peaceful means in conformity with the United Nations Charter, he concluded. Force could be resorted to only when all other means had been exhausted. The international community was not now at that point. Energies must be directed, not at fighting, but at uniting efforts.

Mexico

LUIS ERNESTO DERBEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said that in the reports presented today he saw a degree of improvement in the working conditions of the inspectors. In the past couple of weeks, Iraq had changed its position regarding overflights and interviews and provided further documentation. While the report had indicated some improvement, it was also clear that the Iraqi Government continued to evade its international responsibilities. It had yet to respond to repeated appeals by the international community, under resolution 1441, that it cooperate unconditionally with inspectors.

The international community, he said, was calling for genuine and verifiable disarmament. It wanted to know when and how Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. It had been proven that, in the last two wars in which Iraq participated, it had used such weapons. Now, the international community wanted to know where those arsenals were, and if they had been destroyed. The international community was increasingly divided as to the most effective way to achieve the goal of Iraq’s disarmament. The unity of the Council was crucial.

Having heard today’s reports, he reconfirmed his confidence in the inspections. If, thus far, the inspections had not yielded the expected results, it was the obligation of the Council to ensure that the inspections fulfilled their intended mission. Iraq must make full use of the final opportunity presented to it. The damage the conflict was having could be seen in increased political polarization, and a global economy that was suffering from uncertainty. Iraq’s disarmament and an end to its non-compliance would help bring about an end to that situation.

Guinea

MAMADY TRAORE (Guinea) said that progress had indeed been made since the last progress report in late January, but many issues were still pending. The progress had included the fact that inspectors had been able to interview five Iraqi scientists without minders. Restrictions on flights by U-2 aircraft had been lifted, and a decree banning weapons of mass destruction had just been approved. Those developments were acts of cooperation on the part of Iraq, but the discoveries of large quantities of mustard gas, defended as destroyed, the development of a missile programme beyond the proscribed range, and omissions in the declaration had sown doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Iraqi authorities to resolve the crisis peacefully.

He said he advocated continued inspections, although not indefinitely. A reasonable additional time period would help yield consensus and bring together the different views around the table. He was concerned about the tension in the international community around the crisis. He urged a direct and constructive dialogue among those with differing views, in order to move beyond that tension, which could deal a harsh blow to the United Nations system. Given Iraq’s obligation to cooperate actively and strictly in accordance with the Council’s resolutions, it must end its delaying tactics. A peaceful settlement of the crisis depended on it. He assured the inspection teams of his full support and urged them to explore all possibilities. The Council must continue working together as one to attain its goal.

Pakistan

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that the latest report by the inspectors had provided a useful update of the situation. They indicated some important developments since 27 January and described what remained to be done. The progress included acceptance of aerial surveillance, interviews without minders and access to new documentation. As made clear by the inspectors, however, a significant number of questions and concerns remained, and they needed to be addressed.

It was understandable that the patience of some important members of the Council was running out, he said. The intention of 1441 was that the process of discovery and destruction of weapons of mass destruction would be accelerated. At the same time, he noted the call for caution by several Member States.

Resolution 1441 was credible because it was unanimous, he continued. The Council must maintain that unity of purpose and action. At present, the Council could still unite around the need to secure the elimination of weapons of mass destruction through peaceful means, and the conviction that to achieve that, Iraq needed to offer immediate active and unconditional cooperation and credibly demonstrate that those weapons had been destroyed. Such cooperation would be in Iraq’s supreme interests. Also needed was a readiness to allow some more time to achieve the peaceful elimination of Iraq’s weapons, which should be consistent with the spirit of resolution 1441.

Obviously, all people of good will desired that all peaceful means be exhausted before the Council decided to bring force into play, he concluded. For Pakistan –- a Muslim country from the area –- such a decision would be most difficult. The primary concern should be the well-being of the Iraqi people. The aim must be to bring an end to their suffering. He trusted and hoped that the Iraqi leadership would also put its people first.

Cameroon

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said that in comparing today’s reports with that of 27 January, he could see significant developments resulting from the wise and reasonable choice of the Iraqi authorities to begin, at last, to cooperate with inspectors. He noted the important advances regarding interviews and U-2 air surveillance. He also welcomed that Iraq had enacted legislation prohibiting illicit chemical, biological and nuclear activities in its territory. Despite that, certain questions regarding chemical and biological issues still remained. On the issue of missiles, he noted from today’s reports that the range of the Al-Samoud missile manufactured by Iraq was beyond the range authorized by the Council. That was regrettable, since it contradicted the Iraqi declaration of 2002.

It was up to the Council to decide how to deal with that non-compliance, he said. During the ministerial meeting on 5 February, the United States delegation had raised the issue of small unmanned planes, which could be used as delivery systems for weapons and other unresolved issues. He asked what information had been provided by Iraq on that issue. The documentation submitted by Iraq last week could contain clarifications on the main issues before the Council. He hoped that, if it was not possible to obtain copy of those documents, Dr. Blix would be able to provide a summary in writing, accompanied by comments and assessment.

He emphasized the need for the Council to continue to safeguard its unity and cohesion. The progress made by the recent mission to Baghdad reflected a noticeable change in Iraqi attitude. That result, like the return of inspectors, was owed to the great demands of President Bush, to the collective pressure exerted by the Council, and the staunch determination of a united Council. The cacophony and confusion surrounding the Council could only harm its effectiveness. Cameroon was studying the non-paper from France, while awaiting the opinions of UNMOVIC and the IAEA. He wanted to know what the key threshold in the number of inspectors was to conduct robust inspections, and what its cost might be.

Further non-compliance with the demands of the Council would be one violation too many, and Iraqi authorities would leave the Council no other choice but to adopt, in unity, appropriate measures to have its decisions respected. He appealed to Council members for unity and cohesion at this crucial stage. The credibility of the Council and the United Nations could suffer if, in the future, that unity could not be preserved.

Angola

ISMAEL ABRAAO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said he hoped the inspectors’ reports would help cool the severe tension facing the world today. Angola experienced three decades of war, which had inflicted much suffering and destruction. Today’s report provided a beacon of hope that it might be possible to save the world from an imminent conflict. The collective efforts of the Council, combined with military pressure, had increased Iraq’s level of cooperation with the inspectors. Simultaneously, that had advanced the cause of multilateralism by translating the consensual will of the international community to disarm Iraq, peacefully and with determination.

He acknowledged the presentation last week of Secretary Powell. The progress made since then had showed what could be achieved by diplomacy, backed by a credible willingness to act. He was pleased by Iraq’s decision to cooperate with South Africa in letting that country point the way towards disarmament. Africa had adopted a clear position on disarming Iraq through peaceful means. African countries themselves had decided to free the continent of weapons of mass destruction, an example that could be followed in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the international community was unable, at present, to declare that Iraq was free of such weapons or that it had embarked on an irreversible road towards disarmament. He was equally unable to unequivocally state that Iraq was fully armed with weapons that posed a clear and impending threat to international peace and security.

The international community had sent a clear message to the Iraqi Government with the unanimous adoption of 1441, backed by the credible willingness to use force, he emphasized. It had been able to secure Iraq’s cooperation concretely, in the face of determined pressure, as reported today by the inspectors. That was an example of what could be achieved when the international community spoke with one voice. The use of force today would preclude that gathering of valuable information that could be retrieved from U-2 flights, scientists, and other sources that provided the necessary inputs to the intrusive inspections demanded by the Council. That process -– an investment in peace -- should be given sufficient time.

Bulgaria

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) stressed the importance of pursuing unity in addressing the issue of Iraq, saying that he greatly appreciated the important work by UNMOVIC and the IAEA there. The experience of the last 12 years showed that inspections depended on cooperation from Iraq to be successful. Baghdad tended to provide such cooperation only under serious pressure. The work of the United Nations was still the main factor in ensuring that country’s cooperation with the inspectors.

Unfortunately, Iraq was still in material breach with resolution 1441, he continued. It was up to Iraq –- not the inspectors -– to achieve disarmament. It was essential that Iraq cooperated actively and unconditionally. Iraq must prove that it had no weapons of mass destruction and give clear and definitive answers to the remaining questions by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, as well as the issues presented by Secretary Powell last week. The most serious issues concerned the chemical and biological weapons.

His country had always advocated maximally effective inspections, and the French ideas regarding enhanced inspections could be one element in the overall strategy by the Council to achieve the disarmament of Iraq. Bulgaria remained in favour of a peaceful settlement, but active cooperation by Iraq was indispensable. All kinds of pressure, political and military, should be exerted on Iraq, in order to achieve the goals set by the international community. A peaceful solution was still possible, if Iraq wilfully disarmed, as required by resolution 1441. All responsibility for any undesirable outcome would lie squarely with Iraq. Bulgaria appealed to the Council to be united. That was an important condition for a peaceful outcome of the crisis.

Germany

Council President JOSCHKA FISCHER, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, speaking in his national capacity, said that the deficits in Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors must be rectified by Baghdad without delay. Iraq must not be allowed to possess any weapons of mass destruction and must disarm completely. Baghdad must actively and fully cooperate with UNMOVIC and the IAEA and comply unconditionally with the requirements of the relevant resolutions. The inspectors had been able to score some successes. Now it was necessary to gain experience with the new measures in place and evaluate them in the light of the common goal of ensuring Iraq’s complete disarmament. “Why should we now turn away from this path? Why should we now halt the inspections?� On the contrary, the inspectors must be given the time they needed to successfully complete their mission.

How to proceed was laid down in resolutions 1441 and 1284, he said. Crucial were the resolutions’ three core elements –- cooperation, inspection and verification. First, Iraq must cooperate fully, unconditionally and actively with the inspectors if the looming tragedy was to be avoided. Secondly, the inspection regime must be made more efficient. France had made very concrete proposals on how that could be done, including increasing the number of inspection teams and improving the technical resources at their disposal. He strongly supported those proposals, for they helped ensure a response more appropriate to the size of the task.

Third, and in parallel with the inspections, the verification and monitoring mechanisms called for resolution 1284 needed to be developed and expanded, he said. An ongoing long-term monitoring regime must prevent any future rearmament. Such a reinforced inspection and verification regime could also be of service to the United Nations in other crises involving weapons of mass destruction.

All possible options for resolving the Iraqi crisis by peaceful means must be thoroughly explored, he said. Whatever decisions needed to be made must be taken by the Council alone. It remained the only body internationally authorized to do so. Military action against Iraq would, in addition to the terrible humanitarian consequences, endanger the stability of a tense and troubled region. The consequences for the Near and Middle East could be catastrophic. There should be no automatism leading to the use of military force. Diplomacy had not yet reached the end of the road.

Doesn't look like everyone believed in the existence of WMDs. But I could be talking out of my ass.

[dissention]

If you can explain to me why the UN votes for 11 or so years as if SH had WMD

What a bunch of hogwash. They didn't. After it was discovered that the US had spies in the inspection teams, the teams were shut out. So UNMOVIC was formed and the UN voted to give them much more power to inspect than IAEA ever had. Yet nothing ever turned up, as reported in hundreds of their reports and hundreds of UN reports. They voted as if he had WMDs for a few years, then they backed off slightly when he cooperated. But once he turned the US spy teams away, they clamped down on him again. And once they did, it's been reported that he co-operated fully.

[dissention]

Hmmm...think ChimpCo violated the Vienna Convention?

To: [Recipients withheld]

From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) CIV/NSA

Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16

Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions

Importance: HIGH

Top Secret//COMINT//X1

All,

As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters.

We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source.

We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC.

Thanks for your help

[strandinthewind]

What a bunch of hogwash. They didn't. After it was discovered that the US had spies in the inspection teams, the teams were shut out. So UNMOVIC was formed and the UN voted to give them much more power to inspect than IAEA ever had. Yet nothing ever turned up, a reported in hundreds of their reports and hundreds of UN reports.

The UN did not for 11 years consistently vote to make SH disarm or prove he had disarmed? Again, the facts are they did. Then, in 2003, the UN UNANIMOUSLY passes UN Resolution which states SH must disarm or prove he has disarmed his WMD or face the consequences. So, apparently, the UN did think SH had WMD. Then, SH starts his same old cat and mouse game with the UN Inspectors. Here is the UN's website, which supports me 100% - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

I mean I cannot believe you seriously think W is the only "bad" guy in this and that he acted alone and in flagrant vioaltion of all raionale thought. It just seems to me that is hyppocritical when Clinton and, esp. Kerry wanted to do the same thing. Again, Kerry chastises W for not using 9/11 as crutch to build a world coalition that could take out SH instead of acting alone - not to mention he and a ton of other D's gave W seemingly blanket authority to do so. So, I think the D's are just as much for Iraq even though they did not actually give the invasion order. Yet, you will never admit this because to do so would be to equate W with the D's and that is sacrilege no matter how true it is :cool:

Again, I am not saying W was correct to go to war. I am just saying the D's not only gave him via the Clinton years the platform to do so, they fully supported him when he asked for permission to do so. So, they are the same in my book.

[dissention]

Again, I am not saying W was correct to go to war. I am just saying the D's not only gave him via the Clinton years the platform to do so, they fully supported him when he asked for permission to do so. So, they are the same in my book.

Have I ever said that they didn't support him? Whenever the subject of John Kerry comes up, I completely agree that he f*cked up when he voted to give Shrub the means to go to war. I'm not denying it. But he and the other Democrats are not the ones who presented false information to the Senate, the UN, and the US. It's been reported how they gave the Senate some REALLY horrific intel that swayed their votes. So, sorry, they aren't the same. They were lied to just like we were, you can't deny that.

[dissention]

Here is the UN's website, which supports me 100% - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

Kind of funny how Hans Blix contradicts that 100% and says that Saddam's cooperation in late '02-learly '03 was "unprecedented."

And why aren't you asking why 8,000 pages of the Iraq weapons report were excised? Knowing you, you'd probably reason that the White House ran out of TP. :lol:

[estranged4life]

It won't be reported, unless ChimpCo denounced conservatism and embraced liberalism.

the chances of that happenin' are the same chances that Fleetwood Mac totally changes their setlist for the current tour :laugh:

[dissention]

the chances of that happenin' are the same chances that Fleetwood Mac totally changes their setlist for the current tour :laugh:

:lol: LMAO!

[strandinthewind]

Have I ever said that they didn't support him? Whenever the subject of John Kerry comes up, I completely agree that he f*cked up when he voted to give Shrub the means to go to war. I'm not denying it. But he and the other Democrats are not the ones who presented false information to the Senate, the UN, and the US. It's been reported how they gave the Senate some REALLY horrific intel that swayed their votes. So, sorry, they aren't the same. They were lied to just like we were, you can't deny that.

Well, according to you, all evidence whatsoever of WMD in Iraq were false and we are there now solely for oil. Ergo - when Clinton or at least his administration used them to show evidence of WMD and when Kerry called for military action during the Clinton Administration based on this false info., which lead to the killing of Iraqi's in the no fly zones and other places, that is the same thing to me as W using it to go to war. Is it the scale of W's misuse that bothers you so much? Again, there is no question W lied. I am just saying that apparently Kerry and Clinton lied too. That makes them equally as huilty in my book. But, apparently not in you book. And that is okay - it is your book (what is up with all my book metaphors today LOL)

[strandinthewind]

Kind of funny how Hans Blix contradicts that 100% and says that Saddam's cooperation in late '02-learly '03 was "unprecedented."

And why aren't you asking why 8,000 pages of the Iraq weapons report were excised? Knowing you, you'd probably reason that the White House ran out of TP. :lol:

SH was called on to cooperate 100% with the inspectors. He did not. That was another material breach on top of many. Granted his cooperation was improving, but why should anyone have believed that would continue. AND - he was still playing and mouse with us with his - you can search this palace, but not this one and please call ahead of time before you come!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are some more:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56506-2003Mar7&notFound=true

Next . . . :cool:

[dissention]

AND - he was still playing and mouse with us with his - you can search this palace, but not this one and please call ahead of time before you come!!!!!!!!!!!

Foul.

Hans Blix, and I quote:

"All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

Next. ;)

[dissention]

Well, according to you, all evidence whatsoever of WMD in Iraq were false and we are there now solely for oil. Ergo - when Clinton or at least his administration used them to show evidence of WMD and when Kerry called for military action during the Clinton Administration based on this false info., which lead to the killing of Iraqi's in the no fly zones and other places, that is the same thing to me as W using it to go to war. Is it the scale of W's misuse that bothers you so much? Again, there is no question W lied. I am just saying that apparently Kerry and Clinton lied too. That makes them equally as huilty in my book. But, apparently not in you book. And that is okay - it is your book (what is up with all my book metaphors today LOL)

Um, all of it was false. Have we found anything? Did we ever find anything, even before the war? No and, uh, no. So obviously the intel and supposed "evidence" (of which there was none) was false. ChimpCo knew it, yet they went forward with the war. I suspect they went forth anyways so that even if they found nothing, they could blame it on bad intelligence. But, and this is common sense, how could all of the WMD evidence be false? Gimme a f*cking break. I was born at night, but it most definitely wasn't last night. Now, if they lied about their case and really had none for war, why did we go? Is it that big of a stretch to conclude that it was for not only egotistical reasons in the wake of 9/11, but also for economic and fuel reasons? Do you believe that they lied and exaggerated their case simply to free the "brown people?"

I hope no one takes out your book from the library, it's quite the piece of bad fiction. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Seems as if Mr. Blix was talking out of both sides . . . :laugh:

[dissention]

Seems as if Mr. Blix was talking out of both sides . . . :laugh:

You're in good company then, babe. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Um, all of it was false. Have we found anything? Did we ever find anything, even before the war? No and, uh, no. So obviously the intel and supposed "evidence" (of which there was none) was false. ChimpCo knew it, yet they went forward with the war. I suspect they went forth anyways so that even if they found nothing, they could blame it on bad intelligence. But, and this is common sense, how could all of the WMD evidence be false? Gimme a f*cking break. I was born at night, but it most definitely wasn't last night. Now, if they lied about their case and really had none for war, why did we go? Is it that big of a stretch to conclude that it was for not only egotistical reasons in the wake of 9/11, but also for economic and fuel reasons? Do you believe that they lied and exaggerated their case simply to free the "brown people?"

I hope no one takes out your book from the library, it's quite the piece of bad fiction. :laugh:written mostly by Clinton and Kerry :shrug: In fact, they should be thanked in the credits for giving W the means and opportunity :shrug: Again, I can admit that - why can't you? :cool: Moreover, I have always said that since the Niger stuff came out, W should be impeached. So, you are confusing the issues. My SOLE issue is Kerry and Clinton were gung ho for this war and made it easy for W to go to war by laying the foundation for it during the 8 year Clinton Presidency. But, yoy continue to assert the entire war was W's doing and exonerate all D's from the process as if they are above it :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

You're in good company then, babe. ;)

Now Now - I am many things, but it cannot be said I do double talk. I tell it like I see it and freely admit it when I am wrong :wavey:

[dissention]

written mostly by Clinton and Kerry :shrug: In fact, they should be thanked in the credits for giving W the means and opportunity :shrug: Again, I can admit that - why can't you? :cool:

Because they were under very different circumstances. Clinton never invaded the country (Kerry had a hand in it, that's a given), Shrub did. Clinton never lied to the American people by saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Shrub did. Clinton never lied and said Saddam could dispatch chemical weapons in 45 minutes, Shrub did. Clinton allowed inspections to work, Shrub didn't.

[dissention]

Now Now - I am many things, but it cannot be said I do double talk. I tell it like I see it and freely admit it when I am wrong :wavey:

You must be a ****ty lawyer then. :laugh: j/k

[strandinthewind]

Because they were under very different circumstances. Clinton never invaded the country (Kerry had a hand in it, that's a given), Shrub did. Clinton never lied to the American people by saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Shrub did. Clinton never lied and said Saddam could dispatch chemical weapons in 45 minutes, Shrub did. Clinton allowed inspections to work, Shrub didn't.

Please site one quote from W saying Iraq was resp. for 9/11.

Clinton bombed Iraq based on the evidence of WMD you just said was patently false. how is that different. I mean killing people based on knowingly false info. is just wrong period - right :shrug: So, Clinton is just as guilty as W.

[strandinthewind]

You must be a ****ty lawyer then. :laugh: j/k


:p :p :p :p :p :p

Yea, but I'll charge you $500 per hour to admit I am wrong and it three more hours at $500 an hour to determine the prior five hours of work at $500 per hour was wrong :laugh:

[dissention]

Please site one quote from W saying Iraq was resp. for 9/11.

Clinton bombed Iraq based on the evidence of WMD you just said was patently false. how is that different. I mean killing people based on knowingly false info. is just wrong period - right :shrug: So, Clinton is just as guilty as W.

Clinton probably is, who knows. I wasn't a huge Clinton fan and found him to be quite the slick little pig, so he probably is guilty of using it as a diversion from his sexcapades. But that was then and this is now. I'm sick and tired of everyone blaming Bubba when all other arguments fail. It's absurd.

As for the quote, gimme a seocnd, I'll get a few of them for you. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Clinton probably is, who knows. I wasn't a huge Clinton fan and found him to be quite the slick little pig, so he probably is guilty of using it as a diversion from his sexcapades. But that was then and this is now. I'm sick and tired of everyone blaming Bubba when all other arguments fail. It's absurd.

As for the quote, gimme a seocnd, I'll get a few of them for you. ;)

I AM NOT BLAMING CLINTON - I am just pointing out that yout assertion that W's war without Iraq had no support anywhere but in his own head is just wrong. The US had been posturing itself for a decade to go to war with Iraq.BTW - the quote better come straight from W - or its gonna be foul time on a fell deed :laugh:

[dissention]

I can do better than just Shrub, I got Minute Rice and Rumsfeld, too. Shall I include Cheney?

Shrub:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda."

"After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who uses Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Minute Rice:

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Rumsfeld:

"Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

[dissention]

I AM NOT BLAMING CLINTON

Now you're sounding like every other raging conservative. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I can do better than just Shrub, I got Minute Rice and Rumsfeld, too. Shall I include Cheney?

Shrub:

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda."

"After September the 11th, we've entered into a new era and a new war. This is a man [Hussein] that we know has connections with Al Qaeda. This is a man who uses Al Qaeda as a forward army."

Minute Rice:

"There have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of Al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time."

Rumsfeld:

"Yes, there is a linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

If I am not mistaken, these statements are correct on their face. But, we are making an academic argument. We both agree that the a$$hole Rove
took correct but very minor and archaic links between SH and Al-Q and made them sound like SH and OBL were best friends and the sole purpose of this was to fool and scare the American people into wanting to go to war immediately with Iraq :shrug:

[dissention]

If I am not mistaken, these statements are correct on their face.

They are? Saddam Hussein uses (or used) Al-Qaeda as a "forward army?" No wonder 55% of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11!

[strandinthewind]

They are? Saddam Hussein uses (or used) Al-Qaeda as a "forward army?" No wonder 55% of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11!
According to http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/

W said SH "could" use . . . :shrug:

Here, http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2002/10/15/Nation/Bush-Sees.Al.Qaeda.In.Action-296930.shtml they say he said "would like use . . . "

So, that is different than asserting W said "used"

Again, this is all an academic argument.

[dissention]

According to http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/

W said SH "could" use . . . :shrug:

Regardless! It's known fact that Saddam and bin Laden despised each other and there is no proof WHATSOEVER that Saddam had anything to do with al-Qaeda once. It's despicable behavior to make these comments.

[dissention]

Then I guess we should just let that comment fall by the wayside since there isn't a source that can get it right.

[strandinthewind]

Regardless! It's known fact that Saddam and bin Laden despised each other and there is no proof WHATSOEVER that Saddam had anything to do with al-Qaeda once. It's despicable behavior to make these comments.

Was that you just saying you were wrong and then spinning it :xoxo:

Again, I agree with you, W lied about the exigent nature of Iraq's threat to world peace to sell his war and should be impeached for it. I am just arguing he was not alone in the boat when he made the sale - the past and furture leaders of the Democratic party were right there with him helping him along :shrug:

[dissention]

Was that you just saying you were wrong and then spinning it :xoxo:

No, I was saying that if the quote was to be taken in the way you linked to it, it was also a lie. :wavey:

Here's another:

"This is a man who continues to murder his own people, a man who has gassed -- used gas on his own citizens, a man who has used chemical weapons on his neighbors, a man who has invaded two countries, a man which hates -- who hates America, a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda, a man who is a true threat to America, to Israel, to anybody in the neighborhood."
-- On Saddam Hussein, and including unsubstantiated supposition, Phoenix, Arizona, Sep. 28, 2002

I double-checked that one, just try to shoot it down.

[strandinthewind]

No, I was saying that if the quote was to be taken in the way you linked to it, it was also a lie. :wavey:

Here's another:

"This is a man who continues to murder his own people, a man who has gassed -- used gas on his own citizens, a man who has used chemical weapons on his neighbors, a man who has invaded two countries, a man which hates -- who hates America, a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda, a man who is a true threat to America, to Israel, to anybody in the neighborhood."
-- On Saddam Hussein, and including unsubstantiated supposition, Phoenix, Arizona, Sep. 28, 2002

I double-checked that one, just try to shoot it down.

Well, what is untrue about it. Didnlt some Al-Q did train at Salmon Pak (sp.?) and high ranking members of Al-Q were known to SH. What SH was not resp. for and waht W was implying was, was 9/11 through Al-Q links. But, can you honestly say he would have tried to stop it and/or would not have promoted it if he had known about it :shrug:

[dissention]

Well, what is untrue about it. Didnlt some Al-Q did train at Salmon Pak (sp.?) and high ranking members of Al-Q were known to SH. What SH was not resp. for and waht W was implying was, was 9/11 through Al-Q links. But, can you honestly say he would have tried to stop it and/or would not have promoted it if he had known about it :shrug:

The training is rumoured, it's never been substantiated. Surprisingly, Perle was the first one to say it. :rolleyes:

Just as Saddam's AQ "link-up" is unsubstantiated, yet he still "loves to" do it. :xoxo: