I see. there are 48,000 boxes of untranslated documents to read. Till we do this we should trust Pres Bush and the run off with his tail between his legs Colin Powell that there were wmd and Saddam and Al Qaeda were buds. You cannot know beyond a reasonable doubt till they are translated and read. This will defintely not be completed untill after Nov 2006 and adminstrative sources estimate that most wont be finished until after November 2008. Adminstration sources say there may be be 200,000 more boxes of documents to be translated and studied which may take another 10 years due to federal budget deficits which limit the number or translators.
Hey basso did you see the associated press article yesterday? It's very enlightening. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_WMD_TAPES?SITE=CAVIC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I wonder if those documents had been translated sooner if it might have avoided a war, and all those deaths. I also wonder if the decision to dismiss homosexual translators, because of their sexual preference, who could have been working on these might have also hindered the process.
According to the article, the administration had in fact obtained and translated a lot of the documents right after the invasion in 2003. Yet they kept them secret while continuing to assert that Iraq had an active WMD program.
It is ironic that it was believed that these documents might in some ways exhonorate Bush's Iraq war talk and plans, yet it seems to have added evidence to Bush's dishonesty, and supports those who have said all along there were no WMD's. Scott Ritter should get a medal.
This Bush government is still lying to the public. Some of them claimed that there are no evident "Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin's group had cooperated to strike targets inside America". What a bunch of liars!!
Ignorant answer; nuff said.......... Like the war or not we had just cause to go into Iraq because of Saddam's defiance of UN resolutions for over a decade. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html This cannot be refuted. As a member of the UN security council we have every right to act against those to do not play by the rules. You can disagree with the President for going to war all you want, but our powers in the UN allow us to do it and our Congress voted to do it.
The UN would have the right , since the resolutions he broke were signed between him and the UN. Bush did not have the UN voted on it. Congress voted to authorize military force because President Bush said that was the way to keep the peace.
Its interesting that you bring this up since you're one who believes the President. In this case then are you saying you don't believe GW Bush when he says there was no connection between Saddam's regime and 9/11 and are thus trying to undermine the Admin's credibility by making the argument that there was and these documents prove it?
really this argument is mind boggling. you break international law to enforce UN resolutions? come again? i'd appreciate it if civilized nations didn't engage in vigilantism.
That's not correct. The UNSC doesn't allow countries or a group of countries to engage in military action in the name of the UN unless the UNSC authorizes it first. The UNSC resolutions mention "severe consequences" but it doesn't state what they are or leave it to individual countries to decide that. It takes an authorization by the UNSC to decide whether a country is complying by UN resolutions and what to do about it. What Congress decides is a separate process from the UN and Congress could authorize all sorts of things that the UN doesn't and vice versa.
bush can and did defy the UNSC because of our economic and military might. what can the UN do to punish the US, nothing. the backlash is in the anti-americanism running rampant in the world. we don't play fair, plain and simple. if any other country on earth had pulled something like this there would have been concrete repercussions.
Basso, has not answered. Maybe we can have a contest to try to guess his answer. My attempt. "McMark, your article does not say ALL the documents have been read. Maybe some of the others will suggest that contrary to those read so far that Sadam hid the wmd in Iran or Syria. Besides, why would you put any credence to what Sadam and his buddies put in the documents? They are liars and terrorists. You and the Mainstream Media lending credibility to them is just what one would expect." Basso
Bull, meet sh*t. The United Nations had just cause to go into Iraq because of Saddam's defiance of United Nations resolutions. The United States did not.
The whole Iraq issue really exposed the UN to be pretty worthless when it comes to global security or mediating disputes. The UN was bound to look bad either way things went. Since we invaded Iraq the UN has been shown to be too weak to stop it. If it prevented the Iraq from being invaded it would've then allowed Saddam to get away with defying UN sanctions on a variety of things. IMO the way the resolutions where worded and enforced was sloppy and this whole incident shows that the Security Council vs General Council structure of the UN is inherently flawed. As an aside even though I didn't support the invasion of Iraq I felt it was a mistake to go through the UN. It not only undercut the legitimacy of the UN but also made the US look worse in international eyes as the US first went to the UN and then went ahead and invaded not even bothering to wait for a second vote. As the Kosovo conflict showed military action can be taken without UN approval with little political fall out if its handled rightly.
sishir, i'm surprised you think we should have not bothered with going to the UN. i agree there are problems but the UN, if only in theory, represents the consensus of opinion in the civilized world. this is a necessary if dysfunctional body politic. bush et al have decided that they know best, period. this is far more dangerous and reckless.
