60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 09:02 PM

I would like to thank you, Teribus, for the most civil approach I've seen you take... It makes it possible for me to appreciate your input here... and I do...

There are so many unanswered questions... and I think the American public deserves to have a balanced attempt at comprehensive inquiry. I am very uneasy about the Bush administration's 'deal making' about the conditions of the inquest. For instance, why do George Bush and Dick Cheney want to testify together... at the same time? Hmmmmm? It just doesn't seem 'up front'... and it's been said that they can keep their story straight this way.

I sure would like to have a lot less spin, and a lot more honesty...
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:49 PM

"The US miltary at that time did not have any means of indentifying targets"
Well they had Predator, Teribus, at least towards the end of the Clinton administration. And when they eventually got around to arming it, it proved very effective indeed.
Arming the Northern Alliance would not have been too much of a problem, according to Richard Armitage. The problem he found was more 'cosmetic': "It was making sure that we wouldn't be embarrassed by what they were. And no matter the charismatic nature of Ahmed Shah Massoud -- and he was quite charismatic -- that doesn't make up for raping, drug dealing, et cetera, which many of the Northern Alliance had been involved with"
Samuel Berger did not believe that: " ... before September 11th that the American people or the international community would have supported an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, notwithstanding the fact we had a President who in 1996 said, "This is the challenge of our generation. This is the threat of our generation." "

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

Unfortunately I am starting to believe that both Gulf Wars and 9/11 are our fault. Now before you start screaming, allow me to illucidate.

We supported the previous Ba'athist regime in its fight to take control of Iraq which eventually gave us Saddam Hussein in power. We then supplied him with weaponry (including bio/chem)and training for the war against Iran (whom we were pissed with over the hostage crisis (The result of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, another best buddy of the US). We also supported the Afghanis against the USSR (which was probably a mistake as it would have caused the USSR to go bankrupt that much faster if they ahd had to keep fighting). The USSR withdrew fom the God-forsaken desert of Afghanistan and in the vacuum of power left the Taliban stepped forward with strict Sharia law. The Afghani struggle against the USSR was also the training ground for Bin Laden and his followers to learn tactics to use against us. Saddam, emboldened by our support for him against Iran, invaded Kuwait because of a border dispute. We went in (thus incurring the wraith of those Islamics who don't want Infidels in the "Holy Lands of Mecca", namely Bin Laden.

I think the lesson to be learned here is that every move the US has made in the middle east seems to have come back and bitten us in the ass. I'm not for isolationistic policies, but in this day of so-called supercomputers I wish someone would program one to look at possible ramifications of our actions 20 to 30 years down the line.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:49 PM

MGOH,

I think both the USA and the UK made it perfectly clear what they considered "serious consequences" to mean with regard to UNSC Resolution 1441, and quite rightly, the President of the United States of America said that he would not delegate responsibility for the safety and security of the United States, it's allies or interests to the UN. In failing to comply with the terms of 1441 and the previous UN SC Resolutions relating to Iraq, Saddam Hussein effectively violated the cease-fire agreement negotiated at Safwan in 1991.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM

Thanks Jim,

On Chirac, I stand corrected.

Regarding Clinton's reluctance to follow Richard Clarke's advice on Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, aside from the opinion of the general public, the biggest stumbling block to implementation of those recommendations was that they were just not possible.

Clarke's Recommendations to Clinton Administration:

1. Bomb Al-Qaeda locations in Afghanistan

2. Arm and support the Northern Alliance in their fight against the Taliban.

3. Put US Special Forces into Afghanistan to hunt out Al-Qaeda members and leaders.

Recommendation 1.
Not possible because a sustained bombing campaign would require over flight rights which the US at that time would not have been given. The US miltary at that time did not have any means of indentifying targets, so their campaign would have been spectacularly ineffective (as were Clinton's cruise missile strikes).

Recommendation 2.
To arm and support the Northern Alliance the US needed willing partners in the region to the North of Afghanistan in order to get the required aid into the country. During Clinton's Presidency they did not exist. To supply from the air would have required over flight rights that would not have been granted.

Recommendation 3.
Insertion of US Special Forces, not possible due to infringement of airspace required, logistical problems, the numbers required, facilities required, lack of local knowledge and absolutely no guaranteed way of getting those forces out.

AFTER 9/11 all became possible - remember the with regard to the war against terror the very clear statement on position, "You are either with us or against us". The results:

A. Unhindered overflight rights through Pakistani airspace - essential for all Clarke's recommendations.

B. Agreements reached after negotiations with Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, to use airfields to stage equipment, specialist personnel, arms and supplies to arm and support the Northern Alliance - essential for Clarke's second recommendation, it could not have worked without the co-operation of those countries.

C. After the defeat of the Taliban, US Special Forces and UK Royal Marines specifically tasked with sweeping through the country along the Pakistan border to dislodge and destroy Al-Qaeda. This only ever became possible with the Taliban dislodged from power, two large airfields secured and in operation, logistics bases set up and with local guides/assistance.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:05 PM

As Teribus pointed out "the original draft of 1441, clearly stated that unless Iraq co-operated fully and pro-actively with UNSCOM, military action would result."

And it was amended so as to remove that part, with automatic military action being replaced by "serious consequences" - and the reason members insisted on that amendment was precisely because they did not intend this resolution to authorise military action. "Serious consequences" meant that it was up to the Security Council to determine the nature of these consequences, and the timetable for imposing them.

That was the unanimous decuision of 1441 - and that was the decision which was unilaterally overturned by the USA, with the UK falling into line.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:48 AM

"Chirac stated that France would veto any resolution that would call for, or result in, military action against Iraq"
No, Teribus, he didn't. He said he would veto any resolution that would automatically result in war. Bit of a difference in interpretation there... Chirac was 'undiplomatic' perhaps to have come out with such an utterance; he should have known that that was just what Bush wanted to hear. And indeed it was

And while we're all offering conjecture, here, I don't think that Tony Blair would have made the first move to push for war with Iraq, probably for the same reason Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan when Richard Clarke was pushing for it... it just wouldn't have washed with the general public.

Through all the faults of the UN, I still would prefer to see it there, and in the absence of any other overseeing body, it is all we've got. The US cannot be allowed to unilaterally make decisions that affect my future, or my childrens', without scrutiny.

It seems to me that less than 50% of whatever percentage of the American public that excercise their right to vote, return not just a President of The United States, but a President of the World.
And he will make decisions that will have Worldwide implications, long after he leaves office.

I think we should pick our fights with a little more regard to the consequences for us, if that has to be the case, because I see we are back to the old 'Agricultural Fertiliser' days again. You may say that this is Al Qaeda related, and I might be inclined to agree. But do we have to alienate every Muslim on the planet by engaging in a Foreign Policy that they believe is designed to beat them all into submission?

My habit of understating has obviously got your attention, Teribus; I don't like using too many emotive statements, when the general drift will suffice. I never liked Saddam..., even when we were his friends.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:49 AM

Sorry UNSCOM should of course have been UNMOVIC

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:32 AM

I believe that in the process of drafting a second resolution, Chirac stated that France would veto any resolution that would call for, or result in, military action against Iraq, the Russians said they would support the French point of view and the German's, although not UNSC permanent members were chairing the Security Council at the time, also stated that they supported the French position.

The original draft of 1441, clearly stated that unless Iraq co-operated fully and pro-actively with UNSCOM, military action would result. That draft resolution was jointly tabled by both the USA and the UK. I don't think that the UK got roped in, we had after all been assisting the Americans for the best part of 12 years in maintaining the Northern and Southern "no-fly" zones. Like the USA, the UK fully realised the danger of an Iraq under Saddam Hussein devoid of any monitoring; with UN sanctions as porous as a collander; and the political/diplomatic pressure being mounted to end sanctions altogether, the situation vis-a-vis Iraq had to be resolved.

To describe Saddam Hussein as, "a spoilt child in charge of a country" is a grave understatement. He was without doubt a thoroughly dangerous character, domestically; regionally and internationally.

With regard to the United Nations, you could throw money at that organisation until you were blue in the face it would still continue to be an ineffectual, mendicant, talking shop, where self-interest rules. As Guest Whistle Stop above has quite correctly pointed out - "The UN has relied on the US to be its primary "muscle" for most of its history" - and in any serious crisis situation in the future it would be to the USA that the UN would turn, not Russia; UK; France or China.

World Peace entails World solutions, that at times may have to be enforced and the UN should be fully prepared to order just that. Unfortunately the pursuit of furthering private national interests of individual member states is something you will never get rid of.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 08:51 AM

Thanks Doug, and McGrath, for your posts. I don't expect everyone to agree with all that I said, but I do appreciate it when people try to rise above the insulting nature of so many of the posts in these political threads. We should expect to have differing views, and should try to learn from one another, rather than just score rhetorical points.

I didn't vote for Bush, and there is a lot about his policies that I don't care for. I am somewhat conflicted about the war in Iraq; I supported it initially, and to a large extent I still do, but I had anticipated that more evidence would be provided to support the primary rationale for the war. I keep a personal diary, and my diary entries from the period prior to the Iraq war reflect this feeling that the evidence, when it is presented in full, had better be pretty compelling, or the administration would have a lot of explaining to do. Since the evidence we have seen so far is somewhat less than compelling, we are now at the point where better explanations are needed.

I am left with the uncomfortable thought that, in the modern world, with so much depending on intelligence-gathering that can't be shared with the general public without compromising our security, we have to place a lot of trust in our leaders. Therefore it is very important that our leaders show themselves to be trustworthy, so that we will continue to support their actions even as we recognize that we don't have all the details in our hands. This is perhaps more true now that it ever was in the past, since the threats we face (a) are developed in the shadows, (b) do not depend on large-scale troop mobilizations as in years past, and (c) can be unleashed very quickly. So trust in our leaders becomes a necessary part of the equation. And trust, as we all know, has to be earned. I fear that the "trust factor" is the part that the current administration has bungled, perhaps more than any other, and this is will continue to hurt us for years to come.

On the other hand (there's always another hand), something needed to be done about Iraq; the Saddam Hussein regime was a menace to the Iraqi people and to others outside their borders, economic sanctions were only hurting the people of Iraq, and there was a continuing low-level conflict (over weapons inspections, no-fly zones, etc.) that showed no signs of abating and promised to ignite a larger powder keg sooner or later. Iraq deliberately and repeatedly reneged on their obligations prescribed by the terms of their 1991 surrender (that fact alone was a sufficient basis for regime change, in my view), the UN was completely ineffectual at calling them to account, and the US couldn't just maintain huge troop deployments on Iraq's borders indefinitely in the hopes of coercing compliance. And most people who were in a position to know believed that they were continuing to pursue nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons, in order to better enable them to resist the demands of the international community. So I continue to ask the question: if we had NOT gone to war in Iraq, what (beyond endless talk and ineffective economic sanctions) should we have done?

Thanks again to those of you who have attempted to elevate the discussion. -- WS

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 08:40 AM

"As far as France and Russia were concerned "serious consequences" meant, no further action to be taken"

Is that proveable fact, Teribus, or are you putting words into France and Russia's mouths? The UN's agenda (and I agree that it is a 'weak' organisation), does not, and should not reflect that of individual member states'.

The USA was the only one (originally) to have interpreted 'serious consequences' the way they did; they got 'us' onboard because of that oft talked about 'special relationship'.

Sure, Saddam was a spoilt child in charge of a country; quite a lot of people in those kind of positions, are. If member states, however, paid what they owe to the UN coffers, perhaps it wouldn't be the semi-eunoch that it is presently conceived to be.

World Peace entails World solutions, and the UN should be there to ensure that no rouge state, democratically elected or not, tries to shift the agenda to their own private interests.

But I agree with you about the kit issue; I joined up for 'King and Country', not for Blair, Thatcher, Bush, or anyone else, and we have been used as the pawns that we are, to serve political interests more and more. And I don't know about you, but many of my friends have died needlessly on the eve of elections.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:02 AM

McGrath of Harlow 30 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

"So now Resolution 1441 wasn't much cop because it had been amended so that it didn't actually authorise war - but it still did authorise war anyway."

Now, now Kevin, don't put words in my mouth. What I did say was that in the amended version of 1441, Saddam saw an opportunity, he could exploit differences of opinion within the UN Security Council's permanent members as to what "serious consequences" meant. As far as France and Russia were concerned "serious consequences" meant, no further action to be taken, China was prepared to go along with whatever France and Russia decided, the USA and UK were very clear as to what they considered "serious consequences" meant - the removal of Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist regime.

By the bye, Kevin, regarding military operations involving British troops. Apart from D-Day, I've never known an instance yet where British forces have been anything other than woefully under-equipped - It is an almost permanent feature, that British politicians in general seem to think desireable, and that senior officers of our armed forces seem to accept as the price that has to be paid in order for them to pick up their knighthoods prior to retirement.

Classic example: Dennis Healey - scrapping of our aircraft carriers - Falklands. If Britain had had one strike carrier in commission, the Argentinians would never even have thought of occupying the Falklands and South Georgia as they did in 1982.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:18 PM

Some folks are always going to disagree with anything anyone posts. Just different folks.

Fair amount in Whistle Stop's post to agree with. And it was written in a moderate and considered way that contrasted very much with the way a lot of Mudcat discussions are phrased:

...The terrorists are the ones who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks... If this situation calls for public apologies from government officials ...then there are plenty of people who ought to be offering them up.

The US government may have taken a more aggressive and impatient posture toward Iraq than many people, in the US and elsewhere, feel that it should have... The UN is not blameless in this matter.

...Perhaps the US is too rash in responding to potential threats, but if the US approach is the wrong one, someone should propose an alternative approach.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: DougR
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:03 PM

Good try, Whistle Stop, but with this gang, no cigar. I, for one, agree with your post, and though some of my mudcat friends like to think so, I am not a kook. You certainly do not come across as one either. But if what you post is not in agreement with some folks, that's the brand you get.

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:56 PM

What Weapons Inspectors Are..., And What They Are Not...

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

So now Resolution 1441 wasn't much cop because it had been amended so that it didn't actually authorise war - but it still did authorise war anyway.

The UN is only as strong as it is allowed to be by its members. It can be weakened two ways - by its members withholding resources and support, and by members acting in breach of the UN Charter. The massacres in Rwanda happened because member states refused to provide the resources required. The war in Iraq was carried out in a way that involved breaches of the United Nations Charter by some of its leading members.

There were good reasons to delay the rush to war in March last year. The British contingent, for example, was woefully under equipped, and would have needed several months more to be properly prepared.

The only reason for rushing into war last March, was the political timetable of Bush. Unless of course there was another reason - that it was feared that further work by Blix would reveal that there were no Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:41 PM

Obsequious nonsense!, I to Teribus now shout
His relentless cold calculus is hiding his doubt
For only one slope is this slippery bout
Inclined to the Bushes that obscure with their clout
And thus does he 'spin' forth talk radio treasures
The mouthpieces unify Cheney's corp-pleasures
Thus minnions like Teribus engage passionate leisures
And spread 'the word' showing us all counter-measures
But the dial is prone, to be spun for wellbeing
And the chorus remaining, ignores the truth seeing...
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:38 PM

How's that for a start?

Extremely non-partisan, if you happen to be a right-wing kook.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:33 PM

You know, if we could all take our partisan hats off for a minute, and dispense (at least temporarily) with the juvenile name-calling, we might try to lay out a few facts that people might be able to agree on:

1. The terrorists are the ones who are resoponsible for the 9/11 attacks. However, the fact that the attacks occurred means that we Americans didn't do enough to stop them. That is true of the eight-month-old Bush administration, and also of the Clinton administration. If this situation calls for public apologies from government officials (debatable how much good that actually does), then there are plenty of people who ought to be offering them up.

2. The US government may have taken a more aggressive and impatient posture toward Iraq than many people, in the US and elsewhere, feel that it should have. Part of the reason for this is that the UN had shown itself to be a paper tiger, and was not taken seriously by Saddam Hussein's regime. The UN has relied on the US to be its primary "muscle" for most of its history. It puts the member countries in a fairly comfortable position, since they can make demands, pass tough sounding resolutions, and then sit back and let the US take care of it -- and THEN complain that the US is too heavy-handed. It would be nice if the UN were an effective organization, but it really is not. The UN passed a lot of resolutions (a lot of them), but was unwilling to enforce them. The UN is not blameless in this matter.

3. The technology of war-making in the present day does not afford us the luxury of sitting back and evaluating threats for extended periods of time before acting on them. Perhaps the US is too rash in responding to potential threats, but if the US approach is the wrong one, someone should propose an alternative approach. Weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, and there are a number of terrorist organizations in the world -- large, small, state-sponsored, and independent -- that have shown a clear desire to obtain them and use them in large-scale terrorist acts. If the world is collectively concerned about this, then the world has to take collective action -- it's not enough to just express the concern, and then bitch about the countries like the US that are attempting to do something about it.

4. The pre-war situation in Iraq had to change, and the US was the only country willing and able to lead the charge. Iraq was a threat to the world community and to his own people, and economic sanctions were not working. The fact that Saddam Hussein was only one of a number of bad actors on the world stage is not a good reason for letting him get away with it.

How's that for a start?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:45 AM

Malapropisms aside, do I think he was the right man for the job? - Given his performance on the job, compared to the authority he was given, no I don't. He bent over backwards to be conciliatory towards the Iraqi Regime, Saddam viewed that as a weakness and thought he could finnesse his way past this team of inspectors as he had done previously, with UNSCOM.

Where on earth did I ever say Dr. Hans Blix was the UNSC. He was however "their man" with regard to the activities of UNSCOM - and he was given authority to implement the monitoring and verification programme on behalf of the United Nations Security Council.

1441, clearly stated that non-compliance with it's terms and conditions would be regarded as a "material breach" of that resolution, and that "serious consequences" would result from any "material breach". There were five such breaches in the time UNMOVIC operated in Iraq under the direction of Dr. Blix.

The President of the United States of America was perfectly correct when he stated that the task of looking after America's safety, security and interests is not something any President would delegate to the United Nations. The United States of America had told the UN quite plainly, the state of affairs in Iraq are your responsibility, act to resolve the outstanding issues that concern us, or, we will act independently to put those issues beyond doubt. He was right to do so. I do not believe that the terms of one single resolution had been met by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, therefore they were in breach of the ceasefire agreement drawn up at Safwan in 1991.

MGOH - "The United Nations belongs to all of us." - I know of 800,000 Rwandans, who relinquished their shares a few years ago.

As for Resolution 1441, IMO, if the original wording of that resolution had been allowed to stand, there would have been no war, because in the original wording, even Saddam would have realised that he had no choice.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:11 AM

So it wasn't job security then, Teribus.
Glad we got that out of the way.

As to why....?
The answers to quite a lot of your questions are 'googleable'. You should give it a go, some day
He apparently did what he could within the framework given to him. To claim (or suggest) that he didn't, is to cast dispersions on his credibility, and you are not in the business of doing that, Teribus, are you?

Hans Blix was not the UNSC as you perfectly well know; he only reported to them. Forcing Saddam to comply was not his brief. It was not the US' brief, neither, come to think of it.
It was the UN's brief, Teribus, and they hadn't quite finished with their business. They weren't keeping to the same timeline that the US was, you see. So given a different set of circumstances (no imminent American Election, for instance), even if the inspectors did take another 6 months to complete their work, there should be no earthly reason why they shouldn't have been allowed to do what they were mandated to do: satisy the UNSC.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:02 AM

"His" company? The United Nations belongs to all of us.

I suppose he might answer he was working away at getting at the truth, and he was working quite effectively, and making progress. And the people with the job of judging whether that was true or not was the Security council, not Bush and Blair.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:45 AM

As MGOH says Blix will be 76 this year, born in Uppsala in Sweden in 1928. It was during Dr. Blix's tenure as Director General of the IAEA that Saddam Hussein successfully hood-winked Dr.Blix's organisation and kicked-off his quest to acquire nuclear weapons, severly curtailed courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.

Now you asked what questions Dr. Blix should be asked:

1. In the meetings that took place between UNMOVIC and the Iraqi's what emphasis was put on the importance of the Iraqi Declaration?

2. Did Dr. Blix request a preview of the document to advise on the acceptibility of the content?

3. Once submitted, and having declared that there were short-comings in that document, why did inspections proceed.

4. Having been given a mandate that specifically stated that full and pro-active co-operationwas required on the part of the Iraqi authorities. Why did you settle for less? Why wasn't the required degree of co-operation not demanded immediately by either yourself, or the Secretary General of the United Nations, or the Chairman of the UN Security Council?

5. Why did you not over-ride Iraqi failure to sanction U2 flights over Iraq?

6. Why did you fail to identify, locate and interview the scientists, engineers, civil servants and military personnel known to have been associated with Iraq's WMD and associated programmes?

Oh Kevin, He (Dr. Blix) might have wanted to put his feet up, but his old company (the UN) still needed the work.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:07 AM

Disarming Iraq: The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hans Blix

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:42 AM

Hans Blix - born in 1928. Which means that he is at least 75 and maybe 76. Really must be time he started to think of winding down, rather than worrying about "job security", don't you think Teribus?

................................

As for the resolution 1441, and that unanimous vote, the other way of interpreting that is that it was a way of putting the ball into touch, so that the process of investigating the whole issue could be carried out properly, without the USA and it's hangers-on going to war in advance. The clear implication of the resolution was that the whole matter would have to come back to the Security Council before any kind of war could be authorised, which cold only be done by a further resolution. This was stated by some signatories both at the time and later.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:32 AM

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 06:19 AM

... close the brackets, this time, Jim....
"Why didn't he come out with that in March? He had no further information than he had then... - Job security"

Priceless, absolutely priceless, Teribus... The guy was on a walking holiday in deepest Patagonia when the phone-call came to go to Iraq.
What age is he now, incidentally?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:53 AM

What tough questions do you think the good doctor may be asked, Teribus, that has prompted him to embark upon this pre-emptive broadside?

Clear indication that he thought at that time there was something there to find?
Or a clear indication that he wanted more time to make sure.
Are you seriously suggesting that Dr. Blix knew less about the WMD situation in Iraq than the Bush Administration did?
Perhaps if he had been given that time, his statement 100 days later may not have been a bit bloody late at all.

To have the weapons inspectors potentially give the all clear may well have satisfied the UN, Saddam's unwillingness to make life easy for them, or not; it was after all, their call.
It was not up to the US to unilaterally enforce 1441; it was a UN resolution, not a US one, as Kofi Annan has very succintly put it.

The numbers of (given different circumstances) incredibly credible people seems to be rising, as far as I can see it, Teribus.

Soon the World and it's dog will be added to that list.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:27 AM

This is by way of a response to both TTR and Jim McCallan:

Jim, if the "World and it's dog truly believed that SH was harmless, why was UNSC Resolution 1441 passed unanimously?" - good enough indication for you?

If those charged with the responsibility of looking after the safety and security of nations only relied on tangible evidence, then, nine times out of ten, they would end up on the losing side. Given any situation relating to national security, you run with what intelligence you have, to ignore it could only ever be regarded as the height of incompetance and extremely foolish. The poor state of US "on the ground" intelligence is largely down to decisions sanctioned by President Jimmy Carter during his term of office.

Dr. Hans Blix's book? Short of money - doubt it. Axe to grind - doubt it. The affable Dr. Blix has a very good reason for writing his book, he's got to get his side across and in print before people start asking him some very tough questions. The following should be remembered with respect to Dr. Blix:

1. He was one of the main contributers to the original 1999 UNSCOM Report, which clearly stated what stockpiles of WMD, WMD pre-cursors, weapons systems and WMD development programmes the Iraqi's had running. Was that report a lie? It was after all compiled through evidence gathered by the inspection teams themselves and from information submitted by the Iraqi Authorities themselves.

2. He was the one who quite categorically stated that that the "Full and factual declaration" submitted to the UN Security Council on the 7th December 2002, was inaccurate, incomplete and could not be trusted.

3. He was the man who, armed with a mandate that required full, pro-active co-operation, on the part of the Iraqi Authorities, succeeded in down-playing every instance of "material breach", while commenting on the lack of Iraqi co-operation in every report he made to the UN Security Council as head of UNMOVIC.

4. He was the man who, on the departure of his teams from Iraq in March 2003, stated that his efforts to find the outstanding stockpiles of WMD, or establish what had happened to them, should have been given more time (Clear indication that he thought at that time there was something there to find?) 100 days later, he goes on-air stating that there were probably no WMD in Iraq - A bit bloody late for that sort of statement Dr. Blix. Why didn't he come out with that in March? He had no further information than he had then - Job security?

While many on this topic refer to comments made by Richard Clarke, trusted security advisor, and anti-terrorism expert. The comments made by Berger and Tenet are studiously ignored - are they somehow deemed unqualified? are they considered incompetent? TTR, Clarke said that the difference lay between "urgent" and "important". The fact that all the principal advisors and experts remained in place, with the exception of Samuel Berger, who was replaced by Rice, I would think that provides a pretty fair indication that those in place (Clarke included) were quite happy with the state of play - don't you? If not then you automatically call Clarke's integrity into question.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 05:20 AM

Clarke, accusing Bush of paying insufficient attention to the al Qaeda threat before Sept. 11, 2001

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:24 AM

that Bush paid little attention to the real threat posed by al Qaida durring this time (NOT EVEN RICHARD CLARKE SUGGESTS THIS TO BE THE CASE)

Actually, Teribus, he did ...and quite clearly too.

When you say 'even', the affect takes on a subtile form of slight or delegitimization... Are you so 'credible' that you can substantiate that Clarke's testimony under oath is suspect? Clarke may be the most qualified person in the entire world to critique Bush's performance on terrorism.

I don't think you are in a position to make any claims about bias or partisanship here Teribus...
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:23 AM

January 1999?
We went into Iraq 4 years later, Teribus.
When was the last time you took as gospel, potentially out-of-date inteligence?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, some guy who knows more about drilling for oil, says it's a duck, I'd say check its DNA, and then there'll be no doubt.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:05 AM

So the World and his dog knew that Saddam was an imminent threat to World security, Teribus?

To have satisfied your obvious insatiable desire for proof, one would have thought that nothing less than having samples of these WMDs delivered to your door by DHL, or at least for you to have been directed to a reputable website where you could have viewed them online, would have sufficed.
From the outset, quite a sizeable section of the British and American public were requiring just that, Teribus; TANGIBLE PROOF!, and since you "do not know for a fact that the people (you) vote for do, 'keep telling (you) lies all the time',....", again, one would have thought that your alarm bells would have started ringing at the first hint of doublespeak.

All this coming from someone whose elevated opinion of the UN ranges from their total inability to "organise a bottle party in a brewery", (whatever a 'bottle party' is) to your contention that "relying on the UN will, on the basis of probability, result in either a complete and utter srcew-up, or a complete and utter unmitigated disaster.".

I see that Hans Blix has published a book, now.
Is he short of money, I wonder?
Has he an axe to grind?

Has he good reason?

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:40 AM

GUEST,pdc 29 Mar 04 - 12:46 PM

"The announcement of the stockpiles of WMD came from the UN, not Bush and Blair."

That is a blatant lie which is so easy to disprove that it's laughable."

I don't know if you have ever bothered to go through the exercise pdc, but claims related to Iraq's WMD stockpile were based on the UNSCOM Report to the UN Security Council in January 1999 - That easy enough to check for you?

The famous JIC Dossier presented to the UK House of Commons mentioned the same quantities detailing the UNSCOM Report as it's source.

So taking into account the statement I made above - exactly where is the blatant lie which is so easy to disprove?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:25 PM

Well, Libya appears to have offered the same deal, well in advance of Iraq getting in the firing line. The continuing Iraq war makes it rather convenient now to accept it, and to present this as a result of what happened to Saddam's regime, and as evidence that this has had useful effects elsewhere. However I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that actually backs up that assertion.

..................................

Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions -here you are, GUEST from NW

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:19 PM

Here ya go -- a link to the article.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM

"...earlier you even suggested that resources were withdrawn or diverted from combating this threat."

here is a story from usatoday regarding important resources that were diverted from afghanistan and the hunt for bin laden. for some reason i can't make the blickifier work so if someone wants to make this into a clickable link i'd appreciate it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm?csp=24

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 03:37 PM

Gee, the Feb 22 issue of Parade magazine - hardly a leftist publication - had their annual list of the World's 10 Worst Dictators, and Iran isn't even on it. So if we knock out Iran we've still got ten guys even more villanous. Why, we could have wars for years, even generations.

What luck!

clint

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: DougR
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:42 PM

Good question, Kevin. I would think that the leadership in Iran might be getting a mite nervous, particularly after Gaddafi eleminated himself from "being next."

DougR

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 01:06 PM

Even Blair has moved on from talking about the non-existant WMD stockpiles to justifying the war on the quite other ground that Saddam's was a very nasty regime.

Which is true enough, but raises the question, if you're getting rid of nasty regimes, why start or stop with Iraq?

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 12:46 PM

"The announcement of the stockpiles of WMD came from the UN, not Bush and Blair."

That is a blatant lie which is so easy to disprove that it's laughable.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 11:44 AM

Argue from the right -- inflamatory, arrogant, "personal attacks", naive, ignorant, and poorly sourced (because the left de facto does not accept any but its own sources as factual -- even when they are over the top (like Mother Jones I saw quoted as factual).

Argue from the left -- this is orthodoxy here. You are enlightened, kind, caring, knowledgable, your sources are praised and your character unquestionable.

bigots. *BG*

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 10:03 AM

No need Jim,

The world and it's dog knew that Saddam was a threat. The announcement of the stockpiles of WMD came from the UN, not Bush and Blair.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: el ted
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 07:29 AM

Post no 100. I thank you.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 06:07 AM

I understand why people feel strongly about these thigs, but it is perfectly possible to get that across without lashing out at people who disagree with us.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 06:01 AM

Since I started posting at this forum, I have continually seen demands for Teribus to ask people to 'name names', to 'prove it'; to 'show me the money', as it were.

Would that he had have been as fastidious when Bush and Blair announced that Saddam was an imminent threat, and had stockpiles of WMDs.

Jim

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 05:47 AM

TTR,

A classic example of the type of thing that I object to:

"Between Bush's inauguration, and 9/11, lies a very important issue. It has been SUGGESTED, by very credible and respected people (NAME THEM)... who have managed to escape the 'hard ball' Bush team tactics... that Bush paid little attention to the real threat posed by al Qaida durring this time (NOT EVEN RICHARD CLARKE SUGGESTS THIS TO BE THE CASE), and intended to shift the focus of 'the terrorist threat' to Iraq from the beginning of his term."

You put that across, as the gospel truth, that the Bush administration ignored the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, earlier you even suggested that resources were withdrawn or diverted from combating this threat. Even Richard Clarke's testimony and that of both Berger and Tenet indicate clearly that neither was the case - So why do you continue to peddle those distortions as representing the truth when clearly they are not.

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: GUEST,Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:43 PM

Whatever, Teribus... Your insults delegitimize your posts...

The point is, your assertions of my point of view are not only absurd, they are talk radio tip offs, borrowed from the far right 'party line'. I am not interested in your anthem for the establishment of miltary/industrial motives... I want Al Qaida caught and disbanded. While you are tooting your patriotic horn for the small victories against terrorism, and loudly proclaiming your own superiority because you 'notice' them... You are forgetting something Teribus... something terribly important.

Al Qaida perpetrated 9/11. Al Qaida is our enemy here, and Al Quaida is who we are at war with. All the rest of the 'accomplishments' you have sited above serve only to obscure our intent.

Between Bush's inauguration, and 9/11, lies a very important issue. It has been suggested, by very credible and respected people... who have managed to escape the 'hard ball' Bush team tactics... that Bush paid little attention to the real threat posed by al Qaida durring this time, and intended to shift the focus of 'the terrorist threat' to Iraq from the beginning of his term. This represents a major breakdown in effective security for the American people, a choice GWB decided to make for us. Though we'll never know whether 9/11 could have been stopped, there are many questions left unanswered.

No amount of personal insults, or 'mad-on' talk radio posturing... is going to make these questions go away.
ttr

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:34 PM

Let's see Teribus parse this:—

Not exactly a change of subject (it's conceivable that it's all of a piece), but as long as they're asking questions, there are a few more questions that need to be asked. Separate hearing, of course, but it needs to be held. Families of people who died in the World Trade Center keep asking these questions, but nobody keeps answering.

Ping! and Pong!

I make no comment. I merely post these links (only two of many on the same subject) for your consideration.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: 60 Minutes tonight (21-Mar-04)
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 01:25 PM

Two of the most despicable regimes known on this planet have gone thanks to your President's actions.

I believe the Taliban is still active among the tribes of Afghanistan, T; and Milosevic was felled on the Clinton watch, nothing to do with Bushie. Regardless of these facts I think there is a modicum of truth in what you say and it does offset in small measure the rampant deceit and militant aggression Bush has demonstrated.

A