on voluntary disarmament; I think some people forget that Resolution 1441 puts the impetus not on the U.N. to find proof of an active Iraqi weapons program, but on the Iraqis to prove that they don't. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/23RICE.html "Eleven weeks after the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding — yet again — that Iraq disclose and disarm all its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, it is appropriate to ask, "Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?" Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding no. There is no mystery to voluntary disarmament. Countries that decide to disarm lead inspectors to weapons and production sites, answer questions before they are asked, state publicly and often the intention to disarm and urge their citizens to cooperate. The world knows from examples set by South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan what it looks like when a government decides that it will cooperatively give up its weapons of mass destruction. The critical common elements of these efforts include a high-level political commitment to disarm, national initiatives to dismantle weapons programs, and full cooperation and transparency. In 1989 South Africa made the strategic decision to dismantle its covert nuclear weapons program. It destroyed its arsenal of seven weapons and later submitted to rigorous verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors were given complete access to all nuclear facilities (operating and defunct) and the people who worked there. They were also presented with thousands of documents detailing, for example, the daily operation of uranium enrichment facilities as well as the construction and dismantling of specific weapons. Ukraine and Kazakhstan demonstrated a similar pattern of cooperation when they decided to rid themselves of the nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles and heavy bombers inherited from the Soviet Union. With significant assistance from the United States — warmly accepted by both countries — disarmament was orderly, open and fast. Nuclear warheads were returned to Russia. Missile silos and heavy bombers were destroyed or dismantled — once in a ceremony attended by the American and Russian defense chiefs. In one instance, Kazakhstan revealed the existence of a ton of highly enriched uranium and asked the United States to remove it, lest it fall into the wrong hands. Iraq's behavior could not offer a starker contrast. Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities. Instead of implementing national initiatives to disarm, Iraq maintains institutions whose sole purpose is to thwart the work of the inspectors. And instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie. For example, the declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad, its manufacture of specific fuel for ballistic missiles it claims not to have, and the gaps previously identified by the United Nations in Iraq's accounting for more than two tons of the raw materials needed to produce thousands of gallons of anthrax and other biological weapons. Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text. Far from informing, the declaration is intended to cloud and confuse the true picture of Iraq's arsenal. It is a reflection of the regime's well-earned reputation for dishonesty and constitutes a material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which set up the current inspections program. Unlike other nations that have voluntarily disarmed — and in defiance of Resolution 1441 — Iraq is not allowing inspectors "immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted access" to facilities and people involved in its weapons program. As a recent inspection at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist demonstrated, and other sources confirm, material and documents are still being moved around in farcical shell games. The regime has blocked free and unrestricted use of aerial reconnaissance. The list of people involved with weapons of mass destruction programs, which the United Nations required Iraq to provide, ends with those who worked in 1991 — even though the United Nations had previously established that the programs continued after that date. Interviews with scientists and weapons officials identified by inspectors have taken place only in the watchful presence of the regime's agents. Given the duplicitous record of the regime, its recent promises to do better can only be seen as an attempt to stall for time. Last week's finding by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling. In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin — a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others. Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people. Iraq has also failed to provide United Nations inspectors with documentation of its claim to have destroyed its VX stockpiles. Many questions remain about Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and arsenal — and it is Iraq's obligation to provide answers. It is failing in spectacular fashion. By both its actions and its inactions, Iraq is proving not that it is a nation bent on disarmament, but that it is a nation with something to hide. Iraq is still treating inspections as a game. It should know that time is running out."
Part of Joe Conason's column in Salon where he talks about the above article... _____________________________ Former Chevron director Rice doesn't argue for immediate invasion of Iraq by the (very small) coalition of "the willing." In fact, the national security advisor seems unable to offer any argument for military action at all. Nor does she cite any new evidence -- or old evidence -- that Iraq possesses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Instead, she complains that Baghdad has failed to behave as forthrightly as South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan did when those nations decided to dismantle their nuclear arms programs. But those countries had nuclear weapons. There is still no evidence that Iraq does or ever did. Rice doesn't bother with a justification for war, but she does her best to frighten readers with those empty missiles. What she says is worthy of careful parsing: "Last week's findings by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling." As noted here earlier, the discovery of those rusting shells by the inspectors proved that UNMOVIC is doing its job well -- and that if Saddam Hussein is concealing proscribed weapons, the inspectors will eventually find them. "In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin -- a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others." Here she implies that finding empty warheads proves the existence of poison gas -- and gets to throw in a gratuitous reference to "terrorists" as well. Does she think Saddam has been working with Aum Shinrikyo? "Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people." Notice that this scenario is entirely speculative. In two sentences, Rice has moved from a dozen small, empty missiles to a big missile filled with "an even deadlier" poison that kills a million victims. Is "if" the reason we're supposed to suspend the inspections and start bombing? Actually, Rice cites another truly damnable provocation: "Iraq's declaration even resorted to unabashed plagiarism, with lengthy passages of United Nations reports copied word-for-word (or edited to remove any criticism of Iraq) and presented as original text." Now that made me wonder: Did the former provost call in a missile strike on student dorms when someone copied a paper at Stanford?
Originally posted by rimrocker Part of Joe Conason's column in Salon where he talks about the above article... _____________________________ Former Chevron director Rice ... Wow. We already expect this piece to be wonderfully unbiased. Since when are all corporate directors 'evil'? Why do people believe the US is so successful? God forbid, capitalism works!...just don't partake in that evil adventure {shaking finger threateningly}. doesn't argue for immediate invasion of Iraq by the (very small) coalition of "the willing." In fact, the national security advisor seems unable to offer any argument for military action at all. Nor does she cite any new evidence -- or old evidence -- that Iraq possesses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Instead, she complains that Baghdad has failed to behave as forthrightly as South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan did when those nations decided to dismantle their nuclear arms programs. But those countries had nuclear weapons. There is still no evidence that Iraq does or ever did. But there's plenty of evidence of Iraq's other WMD, which could kill just as many. Rice doesn't bother with a justification for war, Really? Writer should read it again. You may disagree with her, but it's right in front of you. but she does her best to frighten readers with those empty missiles. What she says is worthy of careful parsing: "Last week's findings by inspectors of 12 chemical warheads not included in Iraq's declaration was particularly troubling." As noted here earlier, the discovery of those rusting shells by the inspectors proved that UNMOVIC is doing its job well -- and that if Saddam Hussein is concealing proscribed weapons, the inspectors will eventually find them. 'Proves' nothing of the kind, since Iraq was known to have 300-400 biological weapons, of which none have been found, or the many tons of chemical weapons that go into those warheads. Why retain warheads if you don't have anything to fill them with? Hmmm. "In the past, Iraq has filled this type of warhead with sarin -- a deadly nerve agent used by Japanese terrorists in 1995 to kill 12 Tokyo subway passengers and sicken thousands of others." Here she implies that finding empty warheads proves the existence of poison gas -- and gets to throw in a gratuitous reference to "terrorists" as well. Does she think Saddam has been working with Aum Shinrikyo? Does the writer think it's a wild leap of logic for someone like Saddam to provide such weapons to terrorists? "Richard Butler, the former chief United Nations arms inspector, estimates that if a larger type of warhead that Iraq has made and used in the past were filled with VX (an even deadlier nerve agent) and launched at a major city, it could kill up to one million people." Notice that this scenario is entirely speculative. In two sentences, Rice has moved from a dozen small, empty missiles to a big missile filled with "an even deadlier" poison that kills a million victims. Is "if" the reason we're supposed to suspend the inspections and start bombing? There is only 1 'IF', and that's the larger warhead, which probably is no great technological feat. Saddam has VX.
Ok, Agreed, the onus is on Iraq, and if they don't comply, then the onus is on the UN to force them to comply....NOT THE USA on its own. DD
Fox News is just as fair and balanced as the New York Times. Well, at least Fox News lets liberals respond to almost every opinion.
Observe the technique Rice used. Maybe Condi's speech was a trial balloon to see if the technique will fly. It will be copied by Bush in his State of the Union Address. It'll be short in logic and facts, but long on an emotional appeal to fear. He'll go from undeclared empty cannisters or something similar, into imaginary scenarios in which hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans are killed. He'll also get very emotional about his great love for the human rights of the Iraqis. Expect lurid details of how our old ally Sadam has coninued his torturous ways, as he always did when we supported him. Don't expect any rationale about why his dad, Cheney and Rumsfeld supported Sadam for so long when he was hideoulsy torturing his own people. I don't expect in the State of the Union for him to sink so ridiculously as to claim he is concerned about feminist rights in Iraq. However, maybe Laura can chip in with a speech like she did before. I would expect him to talk alot about prayer and how God is on our side and how humanitarian Americans have always been.
Rice provided plenty of logic and facts. And she provided much- needed historical perspective. Countries where inspections were successful were cooperative countries. I like how Iraq just cut and pasted in it's "declaration" of weapons. Where is the emotional stuff you are talking about? What imaginary scenarios? That stuff wasn't in the article.
what if the UN never enforces compliance? what if we have solid intelligence and well founded belief that they have WMD, and the UN does nothing? then what?
what if the UN never enforces compliance? what if we have solid intelligence and well founded belief that they have WMD, and the UN does nothing? then what? Then we present said evidence (something we should have done 6 months ago) and blast the UN for being a gutless agency that will be irrelevent in the coming century if they can't enforce their own resolutions, and make it clear that if they expect the US to work within the UN in the future, they need to get their act together and develop a spine. The UN is ridiculously sensitive about its importance in the world, especially in relation to the US - you could very easily guilt it into supporting a war <I>if you back them into a corner by making a strong public case</i>. Unfortunately, our administration doesn't seem to care about doing that ... or they insist on waiting until the entire world is already against the war to do it (at which point, it may be too late to get world support).
Originally posted by glynch Observe the technique Rice used. Maybe Condi's speech was a trial balloon to see if the technique will fly. It will be copied by Bush in his State of the Union Address. It'll be short in logic and facts, but long on an emotional appeal to fear. He'll go from undeclared empty cannisters or something similar, into imaginary scenarios in which hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans are killed. And if they're right, what do you do after? Say 'Oops, I was wrong'? Thank goodness we don't have to rely on you for our security. You cannot even admit the possibility of a threat. He'll also get very emotional about his great love for the human rights of the Iraqis. Expect lurid details of how our old ally Sadam has coninued his torturous ways, as he always did when we supported him. Don't expect any rationale about why his dad, Cheney and Rumsfeld supported Sadam for so long when he was hideoulsy torturing his own people. That's right. They chose the lessor of two evils, in their eyes, rightly or wrongly (I personally agree with 'wrongly'). But you're ready and willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater.
