Originally found at BBC.com Sunday, 15 September, 2002, 13:13 GMT 14:13 UK Arabs urge Iraq to end defiance Iraq is coming under increasing pressure from Arab states who are opposed to US military intervention to comply quickly with United Nations resolutions to avoid the threat of war. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- " We think there is a window of opportunity....we hope Iraq will take this opportunity to come through " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prince Saud Al Faisal Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal told the BBC that since Baghdad "claims that it has no weapons of mass destruction, it seems the normal thing to do is to invite the inspectors in and finish the crisis". Resolving the issue would, he said, spare the Iraqi people "great hardships". The Arab League made a similar appeal to Iraq after a meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on the margins of the General Assembly in New York on Saturday. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has spent the past few days meeting Security Council members in search of support for a tough new resolution on Iraq. But President George W Bush repeated on Saturday that he was willing to act alone unless the UN started to "show some backbone" by confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher has expressed hope that the crisis could be solved without the need for a new resolution. "We are discussing the way to overcome the present difficulties, if we do, then I suppose there won't be need for a resolution," he said, adding that Egypt detected "signs of flexibility" in Iraq's position. 'Unjustifiable aggression' Iraq has accused the US and Britain of fabricating fears about its alleged weapons programme in order to seize Iraqi oil and "redraw the map of the region". Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told journalists in Baghdad that the US had turned down all of Iraq's offers to check for weapons of mass destruction and was looking for a "pretext to justify an unjustifiable invasion and aggression on Iraq". Mr Aziz said Iraq was open to all suggestions for a solution to the arms inspection crisis but that at the moment no one had come forward with any specific plan. If there was such a plan, he said, Iraq would consider it. Sunday's Iraqi newspapers called President Bush a "liar, son of a liar" for his speech on Thursday outlining the threats posed by Iraq to the US General Assembly. "He clearly expressed the arrogance of his administration and his bellicose side which the world rejects and condemns," the daily al-Thawra said. 'Growing support' US Vice President Dick Cheney has said he sees international support building for Washington's position. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- " It's not going to be enough here to simply invite inspectors back in and say, 'There, the problem is solved' " ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dick Cheney "There are going to be a lot of countries that will say, 'Look, the US is serious, President Bush is serious about this, and we basically want to sign on and support that effort,'" Mr Cheney told the American TV network CNN. He also stressed that a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq may not be enough to satisfy the US. So far, only Britain has aligned itself with the Bush administration's policy to bring about "regime change" in Iraq. However, the foreign ministers of both Egypt and Saudi Arabia - whose support could be crucial to Washington - indicated they would co-operate with a US-led attack on Iraq backed by the UN. "If the United Nations takes a decision, by the Security Council, to implement a policy of the UN, every country that has signed the charter of the UN has to fulfil it," Prince Saud said, also in an interview with CNN. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope his ass complies... Because war sucks...
will the people who criticized pres. bush for being unable to build a coalition admit they were wrong when and if he does? just curious...
Wasn't their criticism about him that he seemed to want to go ahead without a coalition? I don't normally participate in the discussions you are referring to, but I read them all...so my recollection could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time)
they alleged that criticism...but that was not the plan. it never was. reminds me of the congressmen who criticized bush one saturday morning about taking too long to respond to 9/11. they looked like idiots the next day when we began pounding al qaeda in afghanistan...and when they learned that while they were making their premature statements he was meeting with a bipartisan congressional leadership group regarding those forthcoming attacks. as clinton said...you better not underestimate him. ask ann richards.
they alleged that criticism...but that was not the plan. it never was. How do you know this? This administration has people who have a history of the "go-it-alone" attitude. For example, Cheney (as Defense Secretary) came out and very clearly advised against a congressional vote on the first Iraqi war because they had the legal authority to go in without congressional support and he didn't want to risk a fight in Congress. Fortunately, Bush Sr. ignored him. We don't know whether the original plan was to go the UN (if it was, he pissed off a lot of other nations with his go-it-alone innuendo) or if he changed when he saw US and global support for an Iraqi war dropping. That said, his recent UN speeches are *exactly* what the critics have been asking him to do for the last 3 to 6 months. Support for the war is entirely an exercise in PR, and key #1 is that you don't wait for public opinion to sway against you before starting your PR battles. Finally, though, he did something right on the PR front and maybe he can get back the support of our allies. Now if he'd only try to make the case here... reminds me of the congressmen who criticized bush one saturday morning about taking too long to respond to 9/11. they looked like idiots the next day when we began pounding al qaeda in afghanistan...and when they learned that while they were making their premature statements he was meeting with a bipartisan congressional leadership group regarding those forthcoming attacks. There's nothing wrong with that criticism. You criticize based on what you know - there's nothing more you can do. If you feel something is wrong, you say so. It's no different than all the Republicans who criticized Clinton for launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan, thinking it was to divert attention from the scandal, whereas it actually was the one time we knew where OBL was and one chance to kill him. Nothing wrong with the criticism though at the time. If we only commented when we knew all the facts, we would never comment on anything.
1. you're right...i don't know...but i think it was strategery! you don't build coalitions overnight...you don't call emergency meetings of the UN...if you believe the other side holds WMD you don't make military action look imminent until it actually is...we still don't have the forces built up entirely in the gulf...but we're getting there...and the rest of the world is coming around. they realize by now, i guess, that if they're unwilling to provide any muscle behind UN orders than those orders are ultimately irrelevant. and the UN can't risk appearing irrelevant. 2. i agree...that's all they knew...but it was WAY premature to start criticizing....WAY premature! national security doesn't exist at the whim of congressmen...military action doesn't happen on their timetable...and in a world of public appearance and media influence, they looked like idiots. 3. was it afghanistan or was it sudan?? and wasn't the problem with that cruise missile strike that it was an illegitimate target?? and wasn't he told that over and over again by the pentagon and his military advisors the day of?? and the timing was SO suspect, major. of all days to do it, he does it on the day lewinsky testifies...then he comes out and says basically what bush said after 9/11...the strategy has changed..we're taking it to the terrorists NOW!!! and then we see no evidence of that strategy implemented again in his tenure. hard to believe...
Originally posted by Major How do you know this? This administration has people who have a history of the "go-it-alone" attitude. For example, Cheney (as Defense Secretary) ... True, Rice too, but maybe not to the extent of Cheney. There's nothing wrong with that criticism. You criticize based on what you know - there's nothing more you can do. So voice dissention even if you're ignorant? You sure about that major? If you feel something is wrong, you say so. It's no different than all the Republicans who criticized Clinton for launching cruise missiles into Afghanistan, ... Did they? Then they were wrong. Precedence doesn't make it right, as you know. You don't need to know all of the facts, but you shouldn't be ignorant before you voice your opinion, particularly when it can influence many Americans. If the Republicans criticised as you stated, maybe they have had some reason to beleive that there was no new information regarding obl, and that clinton was waiting for a politically opportune moment to take action. Or, they may have been ignorant or worse; clinton may have been honest ( ) and right in his timing of the attack. Hard to say, I am not entirely knowledgable on the specifics . The criticism of Bush, whether from demos or repubs for taking too long, sounds like the worst kind of political crap to me. It takes time to contemplate and prepare a response. If he goes 'too fast', he's open to criticism. If he goes 'too slow' he's open to criticism. Thus, weaklings come out of the woodwork to try and score some political points at the expense of our country, not just the other Party.
MM, if you believe the other side holds WMD you don't make military action look imminent until it actually is... But that's exactly what Bush has done... For 6 months he's gone on and on about how we're going to attack Iraq sometime soon. 2. i agree...that's all they knew...but it was WAY premature to start criticizing....WAY premature! national security doesn't exist at the whim of congressmen...military action doesn't happen on their timetable... I disagree. If an administration comes out and says they intend to attack another country, they have an obligation to tell the people and their other elected leaders why and justify their course of action. If they weren't ready to do that, they shouldn't have already come out and said that they intend to attack Iraq. 3. was it afghanistan or was it sudan?? and wasn't the problem with that cruise missile strike that it was an illegitimate target?? and wasn't he told that over and over again by the pentagon and his military advisors the day of?? and the timing was SO suspect, major. of all days to do it, he does it on the day lewinsky testifies... There were two. There was one at the Sudan factory that supposedly turned out to be prescription drugs. There was another in Afghanistan that was a meeting of Al Queda leadership. They missed OBL by a few hours, from what we heard after 9/11. I agree that the timing was suspect - that's why I understand the criticism. Similarly here, there are a number of unanswered questions, and when Bush refuses to answer them, you start questioning things. I don't see a problem here. If the criticism is wrong, so be it. What harm did it do? Cohen, So voice dissention even if you're ignorant? You sure about that major? There's a difference between ignorance and not knowing all the facts. We make decisions based on incomplete information all the time. Unless you claim to know everything about Clinton and Bush, would you call your vote in the elections ignorant? Obviously not. You take the information you have and try to make reasonable assumptions and conclusions. We all do it every day in life. Did they? Then they were wrong. Precedence doesn't make it right, as you know. Of course, after the fact, they were wrong. But at the time, it was perfectly reasonable criticism. Clinton's actions looked exactly like <I>Wag The Dog</I>. Congress has a legitimate right and responsibility to question things they disagree with. If they are proven wrong later, so be it. The criticism of Bush, whether from demos or repubs for taking too long, sounds like the worst kind of political crap to me. It takes time to contemplate and prepare a response. Of course it takes time. But Bush and company came out and stated their intentions many months ago and then <I>didn't follow up on it</I> - that's the problem. They sat there and let nation after nation bash them endlessly for months before making the case to the UN. They let public opinion (both here and abroad) turn against them for months and months and still haven't even made the case to the US people. If they don't have the plan formulated, don't go on and on about your plans but then refuse to answer important questions (like "why").
