Teribus,

In reesponse:

"1. Iran did have nuclear weapons programme, which was, on evaluation of new information received in August 2007, halted in the summer of 2003."

this is true.

"2. While the President was informed about the a new intelligence source in August 2007 he was not told what that information was because at that time it had not been fully analysed and evaluated."

How in the world would you know this? This sounds like Dana Perino propaganda.

"3. From 1 & 2 above it is clear that when the President made his remarks on 23 October he was not aware that his intelligence services evaluation was leading them to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme had been halted. So when he made his remarks on 23rd October he could not have been lying as Bobert claims."

1 may be true but 2 is far from substantiated except through an opinion not a fact.


"4. The President was informed with regard to the analysis and evaluation of the new information roughly one week before the NIE was made public, i.e. long after 23rd October."

Bush probably knew about the information long before then.

5. Has the Iranian nuclear weapons programme been abandoned or renounced? No it has not, there has been no clear statement from Tehran on this. Nobody outside of Iran knows anything for certain about the status and aims of their nuclear programme. Recent reports suggest that it was restarted in 2004, so there is even uncertainty as to whether at the moment it has been halted or not.

Not much uncertainty. Only an agenda that would like to be accusatory to Iran and have an excuse to bomb them.

6. If the Iranian nuclear weapons programme has in fact been halted, does it still pose a threat?

Not really. There is more of a threat from North Korea or Pakistan.

"Of course it does, it lies outwith the terms and conditions of the NPT and could be restarted at any moment in the future."

The US and Israel are not now signatories to the NPT and Iran is.

"Conclusion #1
It would appear that Bobert was 100% wrong with regard to the World War III jibe and the "Bobert fact" that the President lied."

There is no evidence here to support that claim.

On WMD
1. Bobert claimed that Dr. Hans Blix stated that the Iraqi's were co-operating fully with UNMOVIC, quoting Dr. Blix's report to the UNSC of 27th January, 2003.

This is true and has been substantiated for some time.

"2. This claim has been disproved from at least two quarters purely by direct quotations from the same report which stated quite clearly that Iraq was not co-operating to the level required by UNSC Resolution 1441 or as claimed by Bobert, i.e. Bobert is knowingly misrepresenting the situation or he is deliberately lying."

No, the lies are coming from the "two quarters" that are not being mentioned. Iraq was indeed cooperating with 1441 and there was propaganda to insist that Saddam had ties to Al Quaeda which is also incorrect.

"3. On the "Prove a negative" aspect, BB has laid it out very well:
- Iraq was asked to submit a full declaration of what they had.
- UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have purchase orders, shipping records, import licences, manufacturing records, munitions records, disposal records.
- The Iraqis claim to have disposed of, or unilaterally destroyed it all."

It was in Bush's interest to ignore this claim because he had intended to go to war with
Iraq even prior to his election so that he could gain "political capital" according to his own statements.

"- UNMOVIC point out that the Iraq disposal records do not accord with the amounts manufactured, that there is a shortfall that needs to be explained, to which the Iraqis offer no explanation."

The US supplied Iraq with these nuclear materials at the time of the war with Iran.
The shortfall has been addressed by some who claim that they were sold on the black market. It wouldn't have mattered one bit what explanation the Iraqis offered because Bush's plans were already in place to invade Iraq.

" If unilaterally destroyed outwith the supervision of the UN there would be traces found at the disposal sites, none were found, surely the Iraqis would know where they had destroyed these items?"

They were destroyed under UN supervision. Pure and simple.

"4. That France stated quite categorically that it would allow no "second resolution" that presented Saddam Hussein with an ultimatum to be tabled. This in effect eliminated the UN from the process of resolving what the USA and the UK saw as the clear threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the peace and security of the region."

Only Bush and Blair were under the misapprehension that there was a clear threat.
Although I wonder if it was really a misapprehension at all and just a pretext for war and occupation of Iraq.

"5. Faced with the prospect of Saddam, supported internationally by France, Russia and China, playing the same old game he had successfully employed between 1991 and 1998, the US acted, they gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to quit and avoid the coming war. Saddam refused the offer and suffered the consequences."

This is patently false information. Saddam was never unilaterally supported by France, Russia or China. As to playing any game, of course he was not to be trusted. But neither was Bush who was playing his own game.

"6. Since May 2003 the following is now known about Iraq:
- They no longer have any WMD arsenal of weapons
- They no longer have any WMD programme running that could be used to terrorise its own population or its neighbours.
- They no longer sponsor international terrorist groups."

This is true. As far as sponsoring any groups, they are not a cohesive government as of yet and it is in the interest of defense industry corporations to advance their hegenomy in the reason and keep this from happening.

"Conclusion #2:
It would appear that Bobert is 100% wrong about his claims relating to Iraqi compliance with UNSC Resolutions."

No, not enough legitimate evidence has been presented to support this claim.
These speculative enumerations are based on hypothesis, not fact and reflect the
opinion of the writer.

" the US does have a WMD arsenal, which, since the end of the Second World War they have threatened nobody with."

You have never heard of the Cuban missile crisis? We nearly had WW III.

" They have been the leading world power when it has come to universal disarmament and act as the main point of storage and collection of chemical and biological weapons and agents for verifiable disposal."

Dream on. They have not signed the nuclear proliferation treaty and Bush has even sabre rattled with a prospect of limited nuke bombs. As to the disposal of the storage, this has not only been effectively done but because of Bush's economic priorities, nuke facilities are not protected against international terrorism.

" Russia and China on the other have always lagged behind, Russia has 50% more operational nuclear weapons than the US and both Russia and China still maintain for use massive quantities of chemical and biological weaponry. Can you explain why you didn't bring all this to our attention, or is this only one more "let's bash the USA" attempt."

I don't know the source for this information but there is no reason to believe that it is true.
There is no way to know just how much operational nuclear weapons exist in the US or Russia today since Putin and Bush both deal in propaganda to bolster their images.

"I am unaware of any occasion in recent times when the USA has terrorised its own population, perhaps you could enlighten us."

You might consider Blackwater and the National Guard's role in Katrina for one. Also,
I'm sure you have heard of the McCarthy era in American politics where an alcoholic
senator terrorized many people who lost their jobs as a result.

"The USA's much vaunted "School of the America's" - Shut down decades ago and strictly a "Cold War" phenomenon, comparable to its Soviet counterpart, the Patrice Lamumba Institute in Moscow. "

The School of the Americas is far from being shut down. It has a new name now
with the acronym WHIMSEC and is very active in supplying help to terrorists in Colombia,
and other Central American countries as well as Afghanistan.

"So "there is a distinct possibility the USA is still sponsoring terrorism somewhere in the world" Well I would suppose that you could take the view that anything is possible, then counter that by evaluating what is probable. This I notice that you have not done Stig. Subsequent to the attacks of 911 I would think it highly improbable that the USA is sponsoring terrorism anywhere in the world."

This is entirely naive. The assasination of Castro and of Chavez has been a subject of
controversey regarding the role of the CIA as was the deposition of Allende in Chile.
The US is not immune from dispensing terror when it serves the needs of those of the Bush Adminstration and their agenda.

The sanctions placed on Iraq were motivated by the GOP's political interest in occupying that territory. Many innocent civilians were horribly affected by these sanctions. Unfortunately the UN bought them by being pressured by the US Administration.

There would be no political gain to be made by Blix distorting his appraisal of the WMD
situation. There would be much "political capital" gained by Bush to deny Blix.


Frank