Bush not to blame on WMD

[channonc 466]

Hey even though I am a Dem doesn't mean there aren't some things I will agree with a Republican on.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Hey even though I am a Dem doesn't mean there aren't some things I will agree with a Republican on.

Exactly - your party affiliation should not preclude you from agreeing with something you think is correct. Like I agree with certain pro-choice positions, and support stem cell research - which flies in the face of my preferred party's platform. Unfortunately, some liberals on this board would rather choke on their own tongues than agree with ANYTHING GWB does, even if it is the right thing to do. GWB could say the sky is blue, and donut would say he lied about it.

[MDM4AU 338]

GWB could say the sky is blue, and donut would say he lied about it.

:lol:

And Al would ask if GWB thought it through clearly!

[SphericaL 0]

But, what else do you do when all you have is a red herring?

You do what any seasoned angler would do, you throw them back in favor of cod and have some "freedom fries".

[Tiger Al 0]

I know you will come back with "the UN should have enforced it and not the US" well my opinion is the UN had 12 years to step up and do its duty, it didn't.

Judging by the absolute absence of anything that Bush claimed Iraq had, I'd say that the UN did a great job.

Here you go, Jenny:

In a report handed over to U.N. Security Council members Friday, Blix reiterated that Resolution 1441 calls on Iraq to cooperate "immediately, unconditionally and actively." He said Iraq has cooperated actively in "process," meaning Baghdad has provided access to any site inspectors have asked about. UNMOVIC has conducted more than 550 inspections at about 350 sites, including 44 sites that had never been searched by previous inspection teams, Blix said. More than 200 chemical samples and more than 100 biological samples have been taken.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

"Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct."

Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November, 2002. In matters relating to process -- notably, prompt access to sites -- we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters which were not settled by the talks Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in Resolution 1441 had been resolved at meetings which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture, we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

These quotes were from January and March 2003. UNMOVIC had gained unfettered access to anywhere in Iraq, before the war, and was finding no WMD's. They asked to continue their process and were told "no" by the Bush administration.

LINK

[ib4au 0]

What's that red stuff dripping from the hands of Dubya?

[rexbo 104]

What's that red stuff dripping from the hands of Dubya?

The same red stuff that was dripping from the hands of Roosevelt during WWII, and dripping from the hands of Lincoln during the Civil War, and dripping from the hands of our Founding Fathers, Freedom for a long oppressed people.

[channonc 466]

Al, I know I rarely totally disagree with you, but I think you missed the whole point. Resolution 1441 was just another resolution that stated the same thing as 687, which was the original resolution. Yes, Iraq FINALLY allowed inspectors, however, as stated:

"Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of

the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts

and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site

inspection as specified below"

There was no documents given to the SG about where these WMDs were, how much he had, etc. Like I said, it wasn't the job of the UN to find them, it was the job of the UN to verify information he was supposed to submit to the UN. He never submitted any info. Now if he didn't have WMDs he should have submitted documentation to prove it. Like I said, the burden of proof was on him. He didn't prove it, so the assumtion is, if you didn't prove you either destroyed it or never had it, then you must still have it and must be still producing it.

[Tiger Al 0]

What do you mean "no documents?" They gave Blix 12,000 pages of documents detailing their WMD programs and destruction. He said it was not exhaustive so more would be needed in the form of interviews and such to be able to call Iraq fully disarmed.

Seems to me that getting high and mighty about a broken resolution from 1991 is the same as being outraged now over the gassing of the Kurds in the 80's. The administration of the day (H.W. Bush) was responsible for letting both problems slide and it's a grasp to use them as reasons to quell the "imminent" threat that supposedly was Iraq is very curious. If you want to make that argument on the 16th day then fine, I'm right there with you.

[channonc 466]

What do you mean "no documents?" They gave Blix 12,000 pages of documents detailing their WMD programs and destruction. He said it was not exhaustive so more would be needed in the form of interviews and such to be able to call Iraq fully disarmed.

Seems to me that getting high and mighty about a broken resolution from 1991 is the same as being outraged now over the gassing of the Kurds in the 80's. The administration of the day (H.W. Bush) was responsible for letting both problems slide and it's a grasp to use them as reasons to quell the "imminent" threat that supposedly was Iraq is very curious. If you want to make that argument on the 16th day then fine, I'm right there with you.

But that's my point. Do I think GW could have handled this better? Of course. Let's face it, diplomacy is hardly his strong suit. However, I do feel like 12 years after the 15 days passed is way too long. Too little too late. How could they possibly be trusted after sneaking around and avoiding responsibilities that the UN held them to?

My point is this, in order to even keep the UN slightly crediable, action needed to be taken.

[rexbo 104]

My point is this, in order to even keep the UN slightly crediable, action needed to be taken.

And even then, the UN had already lost credibility. The only 2 countries with any credibility right now, with the true ability to now use diplomatic pressure backed by the threat of force, are the US and the UK. (See Libya)

The original point of the UN was when some country/rogue leader was out of control, then most of the civlilized nations could stand up to him, hopefully with just diplomatic pressure having an effect, but if not, the combined force and will of the other countries as a last resort.

The League of Nations disproved this concept in the late 1930s with ignoring Hitler and Italy's aggressions, and in the 1990's the UN was shown to be ineffective in trying to control Saddam. In fact, the UN was also ineffective in the Balkans, and NATO and Clinton had to take actions themselves. (Clinton also attacked Iraq in Dec of 1998 without the 'approval' of the UN.)

Would any rogue leader now be too concerned if the UN Security Council was debating their actions? No, they would just bribe France and Germany, as Saddam did, and cause another split...

[channonc 466]

I agree, the UN has proven itself useless time and time again. And I like you have said that many don't remember this same experiment called "the League of Nations."

But problem is, we are a member of the UN. We do need to try to uphold the resolutions that are passed.