http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=57481814&p=5748z5zx Blix: 'Inconsistencies' in Iraqi declaration 19/12/2002 - 18:06:01 Iraq’s weapons declaration contains ”inconsistencies” and leaves many questions unanswered, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council today. “An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give us a lot of evidence,” he said after addressing the Council in New York. Dr Blix said that in the biological area, a table which Iraq submitted previously was not included in the latest 12,000 page report. “This table has been omitted from the current declaration and the reasons for the omission need to be explained,” Blix said.
Madmax, you're silly I guess like Sean Penn. Why are you concerned about matters like this? It is a nice day out, can't you figure anything else to do. Get a life. I didn't read the article as I've now seen the light. Could you tell me what color was the hat or at least the suit that Blix was wearing when he issued that statement?
i like the light-hearted nature of your post...but keep in mind, i didn't attempt to do blix's job for him. i didn't pretend that i could go to iraq with some authority and get answers to the very same questions the UN has experts attempting to answer. it's not penn's motives that i question...i think he has the best of intentions...i think it's the arrogance of a celebrity, merely because he acts in movies, thinking he can go in and find these answers above and beyond what world leaders have been able to do that calls for mockery.
This is what I call, "material breach." Also...Iraq is trying to pull a classic lawyerly trick here...they're attempting to sway the burden of proof regarding WMD to the UN. The resolution is clear that the burden is on Iraq to show that they have disposed of certain materials...they are clearly not meeting that burden, and instead seem to be more concerned with obfuscation and putting words in sean penn's mouth. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=363156 Missing: four tons of nerve gas, 8.5 tons of anthrax, and assorted nuclear bomb parts By David Usborne and Rupert Cornwell 20 December 2002 The United States pushed the world closer to armed conflict last night when Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, asserted that Iraq's declaration on its weapons capacities "totally failed" to meet the conditions laid down by the United Nations. The document, he said, was nothing more than "a catalogue of flagrant omissions and recycled information." Speaking after the two senior UN weapons inspectors had told the Security Council there were serious "holes" in the declaration, General Powell said the shortcomings constituted a "material breach" of Baghdad's obligations – two words that have been treated as a coded trigger for war. But he indicated the US would not immediately unleash a military campaign. Instead, over the "coming weeks" Washington would seek to intensify UN inspections and secure interviews with Iraqi scientists outside Iraq, while enlisting as broad diplomatic support as possible for the military action that now seems inevitable. General Powell left only the barest chink of light for Saddam Hussein to comply. The declaration had been a final opportunity to come clean over Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities, he said, but "so far" the Iraqi leader had responded "with new lies". Specifically, he cited major discrepancies between the former production capacity for anthrax and botulinum, two deadly biological agents, admitted by Iraq in the new document, and the findings of the previous UN inspectors after they left Iraq in late 1998. These estimated capacity to be three times larger. Coupled with Washington's announcement of plans to send 50,000 more troops to the Gulf by mid-January, doubling its military manpower in the region, yesterday's developments in the UN only added to the impression that war is on the way, most likely in early or mid-February. But while consensus prevailed in the Security Council that Iraq's declaration was broadly unsatisfactory, no other member was ready to back the US in declaring a new material breach. Even Britain, which has stood arm-in-arm with Washington on the issue, declined to utter the words. Ministers in London have said omissions in the text are not in themselves grounds for war. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said war was not inevitable but Iraq had pulled one "trigger" and "they now have their finger on the other trigger". The Security Council had met to hear a preliminary assessment of the 12,000-page Iraqi report by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, and Mohammed al-Baradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Both men said they would offer a more conclusive analysis of the material in the new year. They are also to give their first formal report on the progress of weapons inspections on 27 January – cited as a possible war decision date for President Bush. Mr Blix said: "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence. They can still provide it orally, but it would have been better if it was in the declaration." Going further, he said: "There were a lot of open questions at the end of 1998 and these have not been answered. The absence of that evidence means one cannot have confidence that there does not remain weapons of mass destruction." Iraq reiterated its claim that nothing had been omitted. Amir al-Saadi, a presidential adviser, told a news conference in Baghdad: "It seems they [the US and Britain] are more worried than we are about this assessment. We are not worried. It's the other side that is worried because there is nothing they can pin on us." Mr Blix and Mr al-Baradei said Iraq had so far co-operated properly and promptly with inspectors, giving them prompt and easy access to sites. But Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said it was not enough. "One hundred per cent co-operation [from Iraq] with inspectors is going to be necessary," he warned, "not on process but on the substance of what needs to be cleared up. That will be the test."
The United States has failed to provide Britain with full details of its "solid evidence" proving that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, security sources say. There is also concern in London that the Americans are again trying to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida network, a link British and European intelligence agencies do not believe exists This is another quote from an article in the Independent. I guess some lawyers, not you Max, would use this tactic, too. You withold or manufacture evidence. US , Britain and evidence
Madmax, do you actually think that it would have made any diference if Iraq would have had near 100% accurate in its 12,000 page report? Also do you think that an inefficient corrupt third world bureaucracy like Iraq could actually account for every last bit of such weapons or stocks for making them, if they wanted to? If the actual aim is eliminating weapons, why not allow the following? 1) Supply the UN inspectors with all US intelligence so they can eliminate any weapons that aren't on the list. 2) Allow Iraq to amend the report. I think it is obvious. You should take Bush and Rumsfeld seriously when they said often in the past the point is "regime change". The whole weapons of mass destruction thing is the issue only as a tool to rationalize "regime chaange".
If the Iraqis are not forthcoming, then they will always be able to hide something, that's why it was critical for them to 'come clean'. The only other way to get all of the WMD, is regime change. It's been suggested before, but the evidence may be withheld until the war starts so we can destroy what we know about ASAP, before it gets used on troops. Then the evidence can be provided and researched by others. 2) Allow Iraq to amend the report. Why why WHY? Do you argue that they don't know what they have?
This has not been the stated US goal for the last 12 years. BTW, US intelligence has never aided the UN inspection team. Why start now?
how many chances do you want to give this guy??? this guy repeatedly fires on US and British aircraft in the no-fly zone...he lies through his teeth..he omits key information about biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in this report that he claims tells all...how many chances does he get, glynch??? "it's alright he took poland, mr. roosevelt...let's give him another chance to give peace a chance." you can't sit around forever...either the UN orders mean something or they do not. as for whether or not it matters...it absolutely matters if we want UN support...and for all the squawking about bush being a cowboy out on his own, he has yet to do anything with regard Iraq outside of the scope of the UN. again...iraq has every incentive in the world to show us they don't have wmd if they truly don't...instead they submit gigantic reports that omit tons of key information about the production of wmd. the only conclusion you can draw from that is they have something to hide....which puts them at material breach...for which the UN said there would be "grave consequences." The UN said that, glynch...not the US.
Blix is quoted in the article above saying that they can still amend the report orally. Did you miss that? Mr Blix said: "An opportunity was missed in the declaration to give a lot of evidence. They can still provide it orally, but it would have been better if it was in the declaration."
Damn straight. The problem Cohen is that you are fighting glynch with logic and fact. He never responds well to that because it doesn't fit into the neat conceptual boxes he has placed everything into in his mind.
Refman, Refman, Refman, here you go again. Nearly pure, easily recognizable, Bush Republicanism. Frequent accusation that anyone who opposes you has little boxes that they fit everything into, is not a neutral fact finder, has an ideology. Why don't you just try to argue your case?
Noone has answered my question. Why won't you take Bush and Rumsfeld seriously? They have said that the issue is "regime change". Do you guys actually think that the report matters, other than as a minor pr hassle for your side to fiddle with before invading? Refman, I'm sorry, but like perhaps a majority of Americans I don't think that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction comprise such an immediate threat to the US that we need to invade. So if they aren't a threat, why not amend the report and keep amending the report and keep destroying weapons. Why the need for war?-- which we can see a majority of the major churches in the US have condemned. Am I to infer that you guys have spent the last 12 years of your life living with a daily fear that Iraq would attack us with weapons of mass destruction as sanctions weren't effective?
You do put everything into a conceptual box...and everybody here knows it. You frequently either ignore the substance of my post (as you have done this time) or you change the subject with wild accusations about oil and money. Not surprising. Tell me glynch...when is it ok to go after regime change? Saddam is guilty of: 1) Having WMD in clear violation of UN resolutions. 2) Obfuscating any UN attempt to account for WMD materials. 3) Torturing his own people. 4) Having a "professional rapist" on staff. 5) Using intimidation tactics to perpetuate his own power. Bottom line is that the guy is the next coming of Joseph Stalin. When will the world condem such actions? Where are the human rights activists now? They bash the US (rightfully) for detaining people without charges for months on end...but they are silent as it pertains to Saddam's atrocities. Consistency please. How exactly would you know until it was too late? Even assuming that the US wasn't in danger, our allies certainly are. Our treaties clearly oblige us to protect our allies. That is a byproduct of the one world government that many on the left have craved. Be careful what you wish for. I wouldn't say a daily fear...but it has crossed my mind from time to time. I suppose that it is a possibility you never considered because Saddam is such a nice, upstanding man?
Hey Refman, you forgot: 6) Ruling a major oil producing nation and not being pro-USA. You also need to watch it with all of this human rights talk, or somebody might mistake you for a liberal (albeit one in the closet).
Standard rhetoric. You must subscribe to the Democratic Party Daily Newsletter. Don't forget their non-religious Winter holiday party. Is it so wrong to ask for consistency? The same people who talk about human rights all day long are the people complaining about taking out poor little Saddam. Funny, no?
