And can’t forget this, which is pretty much what I figured. If borne out, it would win my hypothetical bet with GOM directly:
Here’s a cite where you don’t have to register:
SamStone:
Are you ready to believe yet?
Robert Joseph ahs been named as the one who was “bound and determined” to make sure that the Iraq-uranium-Africa bit stayed in the SotU address.
What, another fall guy already? Who’s this one shielding?
LOL
Apparently our internet paths must not have crossed before…
Sorry, I don’t get your reference, GOM.
Ask him for a cite.
While the media runs through another Bush-bashing frenzy, the main point is ignored.
I want to jump start this discussion again, by hijacking it. The main point is not who supplied the information, correct or not, or even if the information really is correct or not.
The main point is UN Resoluntion 1441.
Remember this? This was the whole point of going to war in Iraq in the first place.
This one suspect piece of information is a drop in the bucket, a needle in the haystack, compared to all of the other intelligence against Saddam’s regime.
Aannhh. Thank you for playing.
The UNSC was already enforcing UNSC 1441 to their satisfaction.
Please try again.
The question is about how well the evidence was presented.
The UNSC was not enforcing Resolution 1441 to their satisfaction. And this evidence, as minor as it was, was not presented very well.
No need to be so snotty.
Bullstuff.
To quickly recap: Colin Powell went before the UN and pleaded for them to support a war with Iraq because of Iraq’s alleged violations of 1441. The Security Council replied, “we’re not convinced that Iraq is in violation, so we don’t want to go to war. Let’s let Hans Blix keep looking to see if there are any violations or not.” Bush, unhappy with this result, then started tooting about his “Coalition of the Willing” and went around the UN.
Don’t tell me you forgot all this already? Or do you truly feel that George W. Bush knows more about how the UN Security Council feels than the UN Security Council itself?
Not only does GWB know more about UNSC than the UNSC, but so does everyone else. Resolution 1441 was a very broad document, which Iraq and Saddam’s regime violated several points of. This isn’t a gray area.
Resolution 1441:
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-08UNResolution1441.asp
Here is the action specified in the resolution:
Isn’t that what was being done before the U.S. invasion? In fact, weren’t the inspectors forced to leave by the pending U.S. invasion? So didn’t we in fact prevent 1441 from being enforced? I’d like you to read through the entire resolution, and identify exactly where you think it authorizes the U.S. invasion, because I sure don’t see it anywhere in there.
WHAT other intelligence? Name ONE piece of evidence cited by the Bush Administration as justification for the war that has turned out to be correct.
If you would actually read Resolution 1441, you would see that it is a continuation of a whole series of other resolutions, starting with Resolution 661, then 678, 686, 687, etc…
- Oil for food program. This was treated as a farce by Iraq.
- Importing/Exporting embargo on Iraq. They blatantly disregarded this.
You asked for one. There’s two.
In addition to those, from Resolution 1205, under Resolution 1441:
Noting with alarm the decision of Iraq on 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission, and its continued restrictions on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Noting the letters from the Deputy Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 31 October 1998 (S/1998/1023) and from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission of 2 November 1998 (S/1998/1032) to the President of the Security Council, which reported to the Council the decision by Iraq and described the implications of that decision for the work of the Special Commission, and noting also the letter from the Director General of the IAEA of 3 November 1998 (S/1998/1033, annex) which described the implications of the decision for the work of the IAEA,
Determined to ensure immediate and full compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 and the other relevant resolutions,
This was from 1998, and was never resolved.
If the UNSC wasn’t satisfied with their enforcement of the resolution, why didn’t they vote to do something about it?
They were content to accept what was happening already.
Furthermore, UNSC resolutions aren’t evidence. Try again, again.
Is it your position, Chicago, that the United States has the privilege of unilaterally going to war to enforce a UN resolution that the Security Council is on record as saying they don’t want enforced by military measures? If so, do you appreciate the implications of your position? If the US has that privilege can the same privilege be denied to any other nation state that decides that it doesn’t much like the way the UN conducts its own business.
And while we are at it, I have no recollection of the President or any other official, elected or appointed, taking the position that the manipulation of the oil for food program was a cause for war.
Where are December, Airman Doors and John Mace? Are they posting on this topic within another thread?
I do enjoy the posts I read from them.