liberals....

[dissention]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest...q.un.language/

Not once in that article does it say that Saddam denied access to the palaces.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...?oneclick=true

This article states that Saddam had imposed restrictions on the palaces before the UN resolution allowing random searches was imposed, citing that those restrictions had been in place since Saddam found the US spies in '98.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0...tion-26380.htm

This article simply proves that Saddam had accepted the UN resolutions new "anywhere-anytime" inspections policy. It also said that Saddam had cooperated fully and that such cooperation was "unprecedented."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

This article says that a letter was sent from Saddam to the UN, allowing for them to inspect the palaces and accepting the terms of the new UN resolution. Again, I fail to see what games he was palying. They wanted unfettered access, he gave it to them.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Message...s_02/2727.html

Same as above; Saddam agreed to allowing unfettered access and the UN inspectors had more power than ever.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

Seems to me that they were still working out the agreement diplomatically and UN inspectors believed that they would be given complete access.

"On the question of access," he said, "it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the memorandum of understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites."

The memo, which was signed by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations and the Iraqi government. sets out detailed procedures under which these sites are allowed to be searched, effectively ruling out unannounced visits.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1737283

"Inspectors had to wait 15 minutes before being given access to the compound, known as the Old Palace, while Iraqi officials sought permission from "higher authority" to let them in, said Dimitri Perricos, who led the inspection team at the palace.

"It was fine. We got permission at the end. We did not lose anything, because the site we wanted to inspect was under observation as we waited," Perricos told a news briefing."

That was the one time Blix referred to. Hardly a big deal, even according to the wepons inspector in charge. It did not say that Saddam refused, it said he was angry but complied.

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept...%20091702a.htm

The UN resolution had not been adopted at that point in time.

After reading those articles, I still don't see your argument.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I think initially not wanting to allow the inpectors into the palaces is significant because the inspectors said such access was necessary. Yet, SH tried to disallow it. Yes, he caved in later, but his initial refusal was "cat and mouse" in that he would allow the inspectors here but not there, even though the inspectors said they needed to go to both. So, that he eventually caved in does not in any way negate my statement that in the initial negotiations, SH was playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, the inspection process, whatever you want to call it. The end result is the same because if SH had won this point, the inspectors would not be allowed in where they said they needed to go. That was bad faith on the part of SH that the end result (the eventual allwance of unfettered inspections) does not cure. He was in no position to negotiate anything under the newest UN Resolution.

Sorry, I don't see that at all, especially from the articles you posted. Saddam had refused access, but then the UN passed a resolution allowing complete and total access; he complied with the resolution completely.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Southwest...q.un.language/

Not once in that article does it say that Saddam denied access to the palaces.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...?oneclick=true

This article states that Saddam had imposed restrictions on the palaces before the UN resolution allowing random searches was imposed, citing that those restrictions had been in place since Saddam found the US spies in '98.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0...tion-26380.htm

This article simply proves that Saddam had accepted the UN resolutions new "anywhere-anytime" inspections policy. It also said that Saddam had cooperated fully and that such cooperation was "unprecedented."

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.palaces/

This article says that a letter was sent from Saddam to the UN, allowing for them to inspect the palaces and accepting the terms of the new UN resolution. Again, I fail to see what games he was palying. They wanted unfettered access, he gave it to them.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Message...s_02/2727.html

Same as above; Saddam agreed to allowing unfettered access and the UN inspectors had more power than ever.

http://www.why-war.com/news/2002/10/01/iraqandu.html

Seems to me that they were still working out the agreement diplomatically and UN inspectors believed that they would be given complete access.

"On the question of access," he said, "it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the memorandum of understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites."

The memo, which was signed by Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations and the Iraqi government. sets out detailed procedures under which these sites are allowed to be searched, effectively ruling out unannounced visits.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1737283

"Inspectors had to wait 15 minutes before being given access to the compound, known as the Old Palace, while Iraqi officials sought permission from "higher authority" to let them in, said Dimitri Perricos, who led the inspection team at the palace.

"It was fine. We got permission at the end. We did not lose anything, because the site we wanted to inspect was under observation as we waited," Perricos told a news briefing."

That was the one time Blix referred to. Hardly a big deal, even according to the wepons inspector in charge. It did not say that Saddam refused, it said he was angry but complied.

http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept...%20091702a.htm

The UN resolution had not been adopted at that point in time.

After reading those articles, I still don't see your argument.

You are not hinking in time. You are focusing only on the end results. Those articles state that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back into Iraq, SH said you cannot have access to my palaces. The inspectors said we want access to the palaces becuase they are not just homes. SH said no - there will be no access to the palaces. Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces. THis is the time frame I referenced. For SH to say he was not going to allow the inspectors into his multi-functional palaces, indicates he was trying to control where the inspectors could and could not go. He was playing "cat and mouse" with them in the sense that he knew they wanted to go there and he thought he could stop them. That was bad faith on his part, esp. after he said Iraq was willing to cooperate. etc.

So, he caved. Then, when they got there, the inspectors had access to the palaces. I have never argues they did not once they got there. All I am saying is if SH had had his way and the US and UN had not been adamant, the inspectors would never have been allowed access to the palaces despite their desire to do so.

That means SH initially tried to block the inspectors from inspecting all areas they wanted. He was made to allow them into the palaces. That was bad faith on his part and just another example of his unwillingness to meet his burden set by the UN.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sugar

Thanks guys! Glad to see I've still got a couple brain cells left to rub together!

But again, I'm not sure what the point is. This was Saddam's MO. When we didn't enforce things years before, why did we think he was going to comply now? Is this a reason to invade in 2004? Frankly, I don't think so, especially since he ultimately gave the inspectors carte blanche and ESPECIALLY since we had OTHER THINGS we should have been concentrating on.

I do not think it was a reason to invade immediately. My position is Kerry and Clinton's position - SH was a terrorist who needed to be removed - period. However, we should have waited for the inspections to finish and tried to get more of the world on our side and better prepare our military, esp. the National Guard, for the task. Instead, once W realized he had not made his case the first time at the UN, he used lies to demonstrate an exigent threat that was not there. That was a horrible thing for him to do and he should be impeached for it. But, that does not negate that SH needed to be reomced from power. It just means W committed bad acts.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Sorry, I don't see that at all, especially from the articles you posted. Saddam had refused access, but then the UN passed a resolution allowing complete and total access; he complied with the resolution completely.

Yes he did enentually, but initially he did not want to. That is cat and mouse in that it is you can go here but there - I am in control and will not be told what to do The end result does not cure his prior unwillingness which was bad faith. That is what I was talking about - nothing more.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

You are not hinking in time. You are focusing only on the end results. Those articles state that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back into Iraq, SH said you cannot have access to my palaces. The inspectors said we want access to the palaces becuase they are not just homes. SH said no - there will be no access to the palaces. Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces. THis is the time frame I referenced. For SH to say he was not going to allow the inspectors into his multi-functional palaces, indicates he was trying to control where the inspectors could and could not go. He was playing "cat and mouse" with them in the sense that he knew they wanted to go there and he thought he could stop them. That was bad faith on his part, esp. after he said Iraq was willing to cooperate. etc.

So, he caved. Then, when they got there, the inspectors had access to the palaces. I have never argues they did not once they got there. All I am saying is if SH had had his way and the US and UN had not been adamant, the inspectors would never have been allowed access to the palaces despite their desire to do so.

That means SH initially tried to block the inspectors from inspecting all areas they wanted. He was made to allow them into the palaces. That was bad faith on his part and just another example of his unwillingness to meet his burden set by the UN.

We're hitting a snag because we don't see this affair eye to eye. I simply do not see it your way, end of story. You can talk about his bad faith and unwilligness to comply with the UN, but that's simply false, IMO. What's bad faith is having US spies in there inspecting. I hated Saddam, but if you want to call a spade a spade...

I simply do not see it as a game of cat and mouse. I see it as a dictator finding out that another country had sent spies into his country, he kicked them out, then agreed to allow them back in, replete with more power and authority. Sorry.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Then, after we amassed troops on its borders and after, I think, Kofi A. met with the Iraqis, they agreed to allow the inspectors to have access to the palaces.

You'll have to help me out, Jason. I read each of those articles and not once did I read that.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

We're hitting a snag because we don't see this affair eye to eye. I simply do not see it your way, end of story. You can talk about his bad faith and unwilligness to comply with the UN, but that's simply false, IMO. What's bad faith is having US spies in there inspecting. I hated Saddam, but if you want to call a spade a spade...

I simply do not see it as a game of cat and mouse. I see it as a dictator finding out that another country had sent spies into his country, he kicked them out, then agreed to allow them back in, replete with more power and authority. Sorry.

No it is not. It is cat and mouse with the sites the inspectors said they needed to go to, regardless of any prior action and even if the prior people were spies, Blix and company certainly were not. In the end, SH had no right to say he would disallow anything; It was his burden and he minced words and played cat and mouse about meeting it. No one seems willing to acknowledge that it was his burden - for the life of me I cannot understand that But, it was.

In any event, my version, which is factually correct no two ways about that, hardly rises to the level of the outright lie you accused me of

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

With all due respect, it seems all the conservatives ever seem to be able to do around here is to jump in, make claims of lies and distortions, and when they are challenged to back up the claims, they bow out.

Doesn't make your side of the aisle look that good, does it?

This is soooo true and is the best thing I read in the last, what is it now- 2,000 pages?, of this thread.

Sorry, Dissention and Strand, but your back and forth on Saddam Hussein is starting to have the same pride/ego factor as Nader running for President again...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

In any event, my version, which is factually correct no two ways about that, hardly rises to the level of the outright lie you accused me of

That's a matter of opinion, even though I believe you exaggerated it greatly to fit your argument. However, we are going nowhere with this, so I say we argue over something else.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Sorry, Dissention and Strand, but your back and forth on Saddam Hussein is starting to have the same pride/ego factor as Nader running for President again...

I agree...which is why I tried to end it quite a few times by agreeing to disagree. But, to no avail.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You'll have to help me out, Jason. I read each of those articles and not once did I read that.

But, I will never convince you if, as you stated earlier you will never believe that SH's initial refusal to allow complete and open inspections of his multi-functional palaces was not bad faith. I kind of got that you thought he was correct in this initial refusal because the U.S. allegedly tried to put spies in there. Personally, I would not blame us if we did given his unwillingness to cooperate and meet his burden under the UN resolutions

In any event, no amount of articles will prove my point to you if you do not believe that SH was in bad faith. I cannot see how you can think that he was not in bad faith because it is so apparent to me, but that is the way it is for you. I mean don't you think SH should have said, "I will do anything to avoid war, here is my country come on in and here is everything I have - See there is nothing here like you thought." If he had done that, W would have had no leg to stand on. But, initially he did not do that. He also, according to Blix's January 2003 UN report (cited earlier) , was not meeting his burden and putting up the evidence Blix requested despite the unfettered access SH was allowing. Again, cat and mouse. All in all, SH was an idiot, a terrorist, and a dangerous person. All he had to do was cooperate and when given one final chance he starts his "you can go here but not here" game playing, which he admittedly later gave up.

Did this justify an immediate invasion - probably not. I think we should have let the inspectors continue - they only had something like two months to go. What would that have hurt us? Nothing IMO and especially now in hindsight. But, history is what it is and we did not wait. That is sad to me.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I agree...which is why I tried to end it quite a few times by agreeing to disagree. But, to no avail.

Whatever. You relied after I initially offered. I was responding to you .

But, I agree no more. Let's not say one more word from here on.

[dissention]

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/179/..._dollar:.shtml

Reports say billions of dollars of Iraqi money unaccounted for
By Associated Press, 6/27/2004 21:55

Billions of dollars belonging to Iraq is not accounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was given responsibility by the United Nations for the country's finances, British lawmakers and aid activists said Monday.

There are glaring gaps in the handling of $20 billion generated by Iraq's oil and other sources since the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein ended last year, according to reports from the Liberal Democrats, Britain's third-largest political party, and Christian Aid.

The Christian Aid report also said the majority of Iraq's reconstruction projects have been awarded to U.S. companies, which charge up to 10 times more than Iraqi firms.

''For the entire year that the CPA has been in power in Iraq, it has been impossible to tell with any accuracy what the CPA has been doing with Iraq's money,'' said Helen Collison from Christian Aid.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...248753,00.html

Billions of revenue from oil 'missing'
Stephen Bates and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 28, 2004
The Guardian

Christian Aid, in a report today, claims that the US-controlled Coalition Provisional Authority, which hands over power to an interim administration in Iraq this week, is in flagrant breach of the UN security council resolution which gave it control of the country's oil revenues.

Resolution 1483, passed in May 2003, stated that the money should be spent in the interests of the Iraqi people and independently audited, but an auditor was appointed only in April.

The charity quoted an unnamed UN diplomat as saying: "We only have the total amounts and movements in and out of the development fund. We have absolutely no knowledge of what purposes they are for and if these are consistent with the security council resolution."

Last October, Christian Aid revealed that $4bn of oil revenues were unaccounted for, but although procedures have been tightened up, the charity said, "we still do not know exactly how Iraq's money has been earned, which companies have won the contracts that it has been spent on, or whether this spending was in the interests of the Iraqi people."

According to the coalition's latest figures, the development fund has received $10.7bn. Yet it also admits that $12.5bn has been generated since June 2003.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentSe...=1087373299955

Charity hits at coalition over spending of Iraq oil revenues
By Gareth Smyth in Beirut and Thomas Catan in Washington
Published: June 28 2004 0:14
Last Updated: June 28 2004 0:14

"In the run-up to the handover, billions more dollars have been hastily allocated to projects that do not appear to have been properly planned," the report said. "This lack of accountability creates an environment ripe for corruption and theft at every level."

After an initial report by Christian Aid last October, in which the charity said $4bn in Iraqi oil revenues were unaccounted for, the CPA began publishing some figures showing how much money flowed into the Development Fund for Iraq and how much was being spent.

In Monday's report, however, Christian Aid said this disclosure remained "woefully inadequate" and claimed it was "almost impossible to work out what Iraq is earning from oil" using the figures.

Last week, the FT published an internal report by KPMG auditors working for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board in which they reported facing "resistance" from CPA officials and called its accounting methods "inadequate" and "prone to error".

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I do not think it was a reason to invade immediately. My position is Kerry and Clinton's position - SH was a terrorist who needed to be removed - period.

Foul. That is factually incorrect.