Alas, Arne, my little viking, Teribus has hefted no goal posts:
CarolC's statement of 03 Dec 05 - 07:47 AM, remains purely her opinion.

Now so far, between a few of us, the actual words spoken by GWB and members of his administration, within context have been provided. To counter that we have been offered red-herring after red-herring, rumour, cherry-picked sentences taken completely out of context and unsubstantiated opinion. When you are asked to provide links or references, by way of substantiation, you pointedly ignore the subject and then accuse us of 'moving the goal posts'. That is not debate Arne that is wriggling, that is evasion, that is total lack of confidence in your sources of information.

Arne, I would only believe too readily that you find it difficult to find any statement actually made by members of the current US Administration to support or substantiate points put forward by the likes of yourself - Your English comprehension skills at best are severely impaired, to such a degree, that you have totally grown accustomed to relying on what somebody else has reported and commented on.

Now, Arne boy here would like us all to believe that the following never happened, or if it did it was irrelevant:

The Clinton Administration did not write Regime Change in Iraq into US Foreign Policy - Fact is that he did, and I can prove it - Nobody in the US complained when he did it .

The Clinton Administration unilaterally ordered attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq. He did this without first obtaining the consent, or approval from the US Senate, The US House of Representatives, or from the United Nations - Nobody complained

His justification for launching "Desert Fox" was Iraq's failure to comply with requirements and conditions laid down in UN Security Council Resolutions agrred to at Safwan by Saddam Hussein's Government - Nobody complained about that. Where were the cries of illegal war.

But after the US has been attacked, the President and his Administration are pilloried for exercising the power at their disposal to act in the best interests of the country, even after having gone to both houses of Congress, even after having gone to the United Nations.

Afghanistan had the general concensus of world opinion behind it, maybe not the anti-war, anti-Bush, peace-at-any-price brigade, but enough of the world all the same.

Iraq came into the frame because of non-compliance with outstanding UNSC Resolutions, it was evaluated as a potential threat, it supported international terrorist groups and could possibly support a far more serious attack on the USA than those of 911 - SERIOUS FUTURE POSSIBLE THREAT - i.e. it requires to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Mark you I would not expect Arne, to follow this, he is the guy who, as the pilot of an aircraft, does not regard himself being under attack until after he has been shot down - bit late then old son, but then fortunately you will hopefully never be in a position to have to make those sort of judgement calls.

As to the...."Plenty of quotes have been given by myself, TIA, Davies, and others by the maladministration making definitive links between Saddam and Iraq."

Unfortunately that is what they have been quoting - themselves, or journalists reports of what that journalist thought was said. Not so fussed about the links between Saddam and Iraq Arne, it would indeed be strange if there were no links between Saddam and Iraq - after all at the time in question he was actually running the place in a pretty hands-on fashion. The links between Saddam/Iraq and Al-Qaeda were known of from intelligence reports pre-dating GWB's arrival in the White House. But the message that Ron Davies was trying to put across was that GWB and members of his administration were wandering around stating that Saddam/Iraq had a hand in the Al-Qaeda attacks of the 11th September 2001, when in actual fact the direct opposite was the case, I can again prove and give clear examples of that, Ron Davies and the rest of you cannot come up with a single quote to substantiate what you believe to be the case.

The claims of WoMD?? No big lie Arne & Co. Details relating to the unaccounted for stocks, munitions and precursor chemicals thought to exist in Iraq were brought to the attention of the Governments of the World by the United Nations - Not by George W. Bush - Not by Tony Blair. Did GWB and Tony Blair believe the UNSCOM Report - Of course they did, so did everybody else at the time - otherwise explain exactly how 1441 got passed. Don't take my word for it, the speeches made by all 15 Ambassadors sitting on the UNSC when 1441 was adopted are a matter of record - They are what they actually said at the time Arne, not what some anti-war, anti-Bush Blogger bashed out on the subject using 20 x 20 hindsight. Again I can provide substantiation for what I am saying - Arne & Co will find it somewhat more difficult.

Arne, at his cherry-picking best,..."Dubya couldn't stop lying afterwards, even, and invented this fantasy (or hallucination? -- scary...) about Saddam not letting the inspectors in (as I posted in an early article here)."

When was UNMOVIC formed Arne?

We know that UNSCOM were withdrawn on the advice of the US Government (Clinton) in December 1998 just before "Desert Fox" was launched. After "Desert Fox" did Saddam invite the UNSCOM Inspectors back into Iraq Arne? - No he did not Arne.

UNMOVIC was formed to replace UNSCOM on 17th December 1999, almost a year to the day that UNSCOM left Iraq. That was the UNSCOM that Saddam had run ragged, deceived, threatened and intimidated for the best part of seven years (Don't bother disputing that Arne, for the proof is overwhelmingly in favour of what I have just said).

Now UNMOVIC, duly constituted by the United Nations were allowed back into Iraq when Arne? 1999 - No; 2000 - No; 2001 - No; 2002 - Yes, right towards the end of the year. Now you can tell us why, you can tell us how that was achieved, can't you Arne. You can also tell us exactly who had kept the UNMOVIC Inspectors out of Iraq in 1999, 2000, 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002 - Couldn't have been Saddam Hussein could it Arne?

Now then Arne let's take a look at the President's Statement, made at a Press Conference during question time on the 14th July, 2003, and let us all remember that AT THAT TIME inspections by the US Survey Group were still ongoing:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely."

Now Arne that was true, or are you going to tell us that there were no activities, or programmes, proscribed under the terms of applicable UN Security Council Resolutions taking place in Iraq. Please don't because they are easily verifiable.

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

As stated above he had kept the UNSCOM Team out for a year, UNMOVIC out for the best part of three years. Once allowed back in they were not given the full co-operation they were required to have from day 1, despite what Bobert might say to the contrary, the words of Hans Blix, Report to the UN Security Council 7th March 2003:

"Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat RELUCTANT CO-OPERATION, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is NOW asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is REQUIRED under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE "IMMEDIATE" CO-OPERATION."


"And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

The reasonable request - "You and your regime have 48 hours to quit the country, or we, along with our allies, will remove you by force."

GHWB's Coalition with full UN backing consisted of 34 different countries back in 1990/1991.

GWB's Coalition consisted of 38 different countries who shared the view of the US that Saddam Hussein was better off being removed from the scene.