Bush strategist looks back in sadness

[Yonivore]

When Corso talked to this Dowd, he seemed sincere

Corso says it wasn't just a few policy differences, that Corso Dowd felt betrayed for putting his faith in the wrong man...He thinks that Corso Bush and all his Corsos have seriously damaged the country (and the world) by the way they have campaigned and governed

That Corso Dowd is doing his penance, so to speak, by working for that Corso Bono...that Corso Dowd just got back from retreat to Bangladesh or India or some place like that..

Dowd's blog, oh boy!
http://livegentle.com/

I think it says alot about President Bush that he even had this guy on his team. It would be like Hillary hiring Newt Gingrich as a political consultant.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You didnt. My point is, Dowd has refused to do the circuits for good reason. He isnt trying to be a voice of reason, he is just airing his personal view on what things were like, to what things actually were.

He likened his relationship with the president to a marriage with infidelity in the sense that he constantly had to rationalize his relationship with the Administration.

I personally think the guy is a coward and money-grubbing political leech. But hes a guy who was in the inner circle of a Presidential Administration. His opinion carries a tad more weight than mine.




This is an argument of moral and values. It isnt worth it. Not on Spurstalk, not in a bar, not anywhere, ever. One could make the case that anything Clinton may or may not have done pales in comparison to what Bush may or may not have done. If you give credence to the trail of "complaints" against Clinton for being a voracious sex offender, then you must entertain the "complaints" against Bush for trumping up the evidence and threat of attack from Iraq.

I know you wont. I dont really care. But, to stay with my lesser of two evils remark, if you told me you can have a President that is an "alleged" sexual creep and intimidates those women he has violated or an "allegedly" war-hungry President who trumps up the threat of war from third world countries using fear tactics on his own people......you could guess my complete distaste for the whole matter.




Thank God. But Jeb isnt too far off. Hes just waiting for the inevitable Democratic collapse.




I think individuals with the means and qualifications to even consider being President of the Free World couldnt be anything but lightning rods and eccentrics. I have no experience with early Presidents (obviously), but I am sure it was just as contentious then. But then again, none of those men held the same status worldwide that 20th century and beyond Presidents have/do. Cant really equate.



I used the remark because its (probably) worldwide common. I dont believe Clinton was evil either. Again, we're arguing semantics. But I do think Bush is either a) ignorant and oblivious or b) semi-intelligent but is truly convinced of his own wisdom, facts be damned. Either way, it makes him at worst a puppet or at best a zealot (minus the religious context of the word).

But thats just my lowly opinion.

hey dark reign yoni thinks bush's mug should be added to mt rushmore...

[Yonivore]

[Yonivore]

Yep, Bush is in good company:

[DarkReign]

You say it's an argument not worth having and then, set out to establish two arguments over which to debate the morality and values of the two administrations.

Correct. The point is, the two sides are predictable with absolutely no middle ground. Especially with a person like you, Yoni. Youre one of the more entrenched people I have ever come across. boutons being of the same thread. Youre not shakeable, because you refuse to even imagine a different view than you have already formulated. You input information and reach a conclusion. And that conclusion stands until the bitter end. Arguing, excuse me, debating with you is a practice in futility. It always devolves into semantics, links and vitriol.

I have always viewed this forum as a an OPINION forum....where the heavy posters here treat it as a FACT forum. Thats why I dont weigh-in on a lot of the topics anymore. The world isnt right and wrong, its shades of grey and a guiding hand, IMO. So arguing with you over the fallout from the two opposed presidential scenarios is fruitless. Youre always going to think Bush is better than Clinton, whereas I do not care for either. But I am reasonable enough to look at the two objectively and say "Blowjobs and fondling, obstruction of justice. Possible war-mongering and Imperialistic propoganda campaigns to trump up conflict. Which is worse, if either is true?"

Youre dead set that Iraq is valid. And it is according to the agreements between the US, UN and Iraq after the Gulf War. But that is NOT the pretense used to invade this time around. It was WMDs, which have still not been found. It was the capability of Iraq to use WMDs against us. Now the tune has mutated so many times, the objective is a subject of interpretation.

An interpretation I dont care to delve into, with you or anyone else.

There have been exponentially more investigations, by Congress, of the Bush administration than of the Clinton administration and not much to show for it. Clinton on the other hand has seen quite a number of his administration do time for various criminal acts.

You say I must entertain the idea that Bush trumped up a rationale for war. Why? There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, President Clinton himself defends President Bush's decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein. A Congressional investigation exonerated Vice President Cheney of trying to skew the intelligence.

There is absolutely no reasonable comparison between what Clinton was caught doing and what Bush is accused of doing.

First, youre being disingenuous. The Clinton Scandal was a witch hunt. Yes, he got a blowjob. Yes, he lied about it under oath. Yes, thats utterly dispecable thing to do. Who died? And if he did in fact harass these women, going so far as to invade their homes, why wasnt he tried for his crimes?

Because they couldnt prove it.

Switch to Bush. Politicians, by definition, are s elf serving bunch. No political party wants to look weak. Outwardly renounce the war, and you only create problems for yourself, your party, your country and your foreign relations. All the people you dragged into this are suddenly wrong because you were wrong. The damage is insurmountable. Thats why when a Dem gets elected and inevitably pulls out of Iraq, they wont be reelected. Incoming, Jeb Bush.

Fine, you win again, Yoni. Because I have already engaged you far enough. Youre entrenched and very close-minded (at least, from a political perspective...I know nothing about you beyond that). Clinton at worst broke into houses, harassed women and made a mockery of the Presidency in Congress. All condemnable. At worst, Bush lied his way into a war which has killed thousands and thousands of people across the globe. To me, theyre both s either way.

And that was why I posted. Its the disillusionment with the government that you dont seem to have. You have complete faith in your leadership, in this country and all that entails. Whereas I question my government, distrust anything they say and wonder what the real reasons are for their actions. Because they are all, Repug and Dems, liars and thieves of the highest criminal order. Bush has the luxury of generational familial ascension...to put a finer point on it, his ancestors did the dirty work, hes clean as whistle. Clintons rise to power happened by hook and by crook by themselves. Thats why their dirty laundry is aired....you dont get to the top unless you scammed your way there. They were just better at it than most and it propelled them to the White House. Bush inherited it by virtue of being born.

Every uber-rich family in America (probably worldwide) has at least one GIANT dirty secret. Kennedy's were bootleggers, Rockefellers were human-demolishing sociopaths, etc. The Bush's and Clinton's have theirs as well. Some fact, some speculation, but I would never go as far as yourself to say one is better than the other. I think you just like one particularly more than the other because they wear the same colors and publicly hold the same value system you do. Whereas I believe theyre hypocrits and crooks, regardless of affiliation. The distinction for me comes "Which is less likely to start WW3?"

[DarkReign]

hey dark reign yoni thinks bush's mug should be added to mt rushmore...

Take a wild stab in the dark on that one......

[ChumpDumper]

Who died?

That chick's cat did -- don't you read?

[Yonivore]

Correct. The point is, the two sides are predictable with absolutely no middle ground. Especially with a person like you, Yoni. Youre one of the more entrenched people I have ever come across. boutons being of the same thread. Youre not shakeable, because you refuse to even imagine a different view than you have already formulated. You input information and reach a conclusion. And that conclusion stands until the bitter end. Arguing, excuse me, debating with you is a practice in futility. It always devolves into semantics, links and vitriol.

I have always viewed this forum as a an OPINION forum....where the heavy posters here treat it as a FACT forum. Thats why I dont weigh-in on a lot of the topics anymore. The world isnt right and wrong, its shades of grey and a guiding hand, IMO. So arguing with you over the fallout from the two opposed presidential scenarios is fruitless. Youre always going to think Bush is better than Clinton, whereas I do not care for either. But I am reasonable enough to look at the two objectively and say "Blowjobs and fondling, obstruction of justice. Possible war-mongering and Imperialistic propoganda campaigns to trump up conflict. Which is worse, if either is true?"

Youre dead set that Iraq is valid. And it is according to the agreements between the US, UN and Iraq after the Gulf War. But that is NOT the pretense used to invade this time around. It was WMDs, which have still not been found. It was the capability of Iraq to use WMDs against us. Now the tune has mutated so many times, the objective is a subject of interpretation.

An interpretation I dont care to delve into, with you or anyone else.



First, youre being disingenuous. The Clinton Scandal was a witch hunt. Yes, he got a blowjob. Yes, he lied about it under oath. Yes, thats utterly dispecable thing to do. Who died? And if he did in fact harass these women, going so far as to invade their homes, why wasnt he tried for his crimes?

Because they couldnt prove it.

Switch to Bush. Politicians, by definition, are s elf serving bunch. No political party wants to look weak. Outwardly renounce the war, and you only create problems for yourself, your party, your country and your foreign relations. All the people you dragged into this are suddenly wrong because you were wrong. The damage is insurmountable. Thats why when a Dem gets elected and inevitably pulls out of Iraq, they wont be reelected. Incoming, Jeb Bush.

Fine, you win again, Yoni. Because I have already engaged you far enough. Youre entrenched and very close-minded (at least, from a political perspective...I know nothing about you beyond that). Clinton at worst broke into houses, harassed women and made a mockery of the Presidency in Congress. All condemnable. At worst, Bush lied his way into a war which has killed thousands and thousands of people across the globe. To me, theyre both s either way.

And that was why I posted. Its the disillusionment with the government that you dont seem to have. You have complete faith in your leadership, in this country and all that entails. Whereas I question my government, distrust anything they say and wonder what the real reasons are for their actions. Because they are all, Repug and Dems, liars and thieves of the highest criminal order. Bush has the luxury of generational familial ascension...to put a finer point on it, his ancestors did the dirty work, hes clean as whistle. Clintons rise to power happened by hook and by crook by themselves. Thats why their dirty laundry is aired....you dont get to the top unless you scammed your way there. They were just better at it than most and it propelled them to the White House. Bush inherited it by virtue of being born.

Every uber-rich family in America (probably worldwide) has at least one GIANT dirty secret. Kennedy's were bootleggers, Rockefellers were human-demolishing sociopaths, etc. The Bush's and Clinton's have theirs as well. Some fact, some speculation, but I would never go as far as yourself to say one is better than the other. I think you just like one particularly more than the other because they wear the same colors and publicly hold the same value system you do. Whereas I believe theyre hypocrits and crooks, regardless of affiliation. The distinction for me comes "Which is less likely to start WW3?"

Wow! I hope you feel better.

But, I think the distinction should be, "Which is more likely to end WW3?"

[Yonivore]

Take a wild stab in the dark on that one......

[Yonivore]

And, as far as being "entrenched" in my opinion on Iraq, it is because I'm convinced it is right.

I'm not so entrenched on other matters involving President Bush's policies. Immigration and drug enforcement being two of the bigger ones. On those, we disagree much.

And, as for your dismissal of Clinton's behavior, this country is founded in the rule of law. A sitting president committing acts that specifically run counter to the U. S. Cons ution is a pretty big deal.

There's also a sense this was commonplace during his tenure and that only adds to the upset. Things such as vandalizing the White House during the transition, stealing White House furniture, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom, etc...

It's a general distaste for his manner of inhabiting the office. It's like we had our own personal Jacques Chirac for 8 years. Nasty.

[Yonivore]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

Since the resident's last arrest, (Gulf War I), there had been a steady stream of information demonstrating he was back in the drug dealing business. Paying pushers (terrorists), steady stream of OD victims being pulled out of the house or buried in the back yard (Kurds and Shi'ites), threats to neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), aggression towards the police (no-fly zone attacks), recruiting dealers (Salman Pak and chemical weapons tests on prisoners), etc...

Nothing the resident did help dissuade the police of the belief he continued to operate a drug den. He bragged to his neighbors about having drugs (claiming he had WMD's to Iran), he frustrated attempts by parole officers to completely satisfy themselves that he had cleaned up his act (Inspections), and he voiced his support and admiration for anti-police organizations (al Qaeda).

Then, one day, a drug house across town exploded and killed 3,000 people in the process. You realize if you'd only busted that house sooner, you could have prevented the explosion. Then, you look at the guy arrested in 12 years earlier, consider his behavior, and his actions and say to yourself, is it worth risking another explosion?

President Bush decided no.

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies. Does that mean there weren't any drugs there the day before or even as you were approaching the door??? And, does it mean you shouldn't have shut down the crack house anyway?

More and more information is coming to light that Saddam Hussein intended to continue dealing drugs -- excuse me -- pursue WMD's. He was developing relationships with terrorists organizations, he hated the United States, he was conspiring with some of our allies to degrade sanctions or get them lifted.

Given everything the President knew in March of 2003, he did the right thing...whining about whether or not the WMDs were there at the time doesn't change that fact. And, to he everlasting credit, President Clinton agrees with this opinion.

That's why I'm "entrenched" on the Iraq War. It was the right thing to do and no one has raised any issue to change my opinion on that.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the stupidest analogy ever, which is why I can tell you actually thought it up yourself.

[Yonivore]

Then there's this:

the Iraq war may have been cheaper than doing nothing?

Factoring in all those contingencies, the authors find that a containment policy would cost anywhere from $350 billion to $700 billon. Now when you further factor in that 1) a containment policy might also have led to a higher risk premium in the oil markets if Iraq was seen to be gaining in military power despite our efforts to box it in, and 2) money not borrowed and spent on Iraq might well have been spent on something else given the White House's free-spending ways, it's easy to see that doing a cost-benefit analysis on "war vs. containment" might have left administration officials with no clear-cut economic answer.

[clambake]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.

obviously, this is how you see it.

[ChumpDumper]

a containment policy might also have led to a higher risk premium in the oil markets

Yes, thank God the Iraq war has kept the price of oil from skyrocketing.

[PixelPusher]

money not borrowed and spent on Iraq might well have been spent on something else given the White House's free-spending ways, it's easy to see that doing a cost-benefit analysis on "war vs. containment" might have left administration officials with no clear-cut economic answer.

at "Bush spends like a drunken deadbeat anyway" as a defense.

[Mr. Peabody]

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

....

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies....

So....at the end of your analogy, do the cops call in mercenaries to kill the junkies?

[DarkReign]

I know you don't want to discuss it anymore, DarkReign but, let me see if I can put my position on Iraq into an analogy that might make sense to you.

The U. S. and its allies kicked in the door of a suspected crack house after receiving credible information it was stockpiled with drugs. There was no question that, in the past, the house was used for dealing drugs and there was no question that the person that dealt drugs from there still occupied the house.

Since the resident's last arrest, (Gulf War I), there had been a steady stream of information demonstrating he was back in the drug dealing business. Paying pushers (terrorists), steady stream of OD victims being pulled out of the house or buried in the back yard (Kurds and Shi'ites), threats to neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), aggression towards the police (no-fly zone attacks), recruiting dealers (Salman Pak and chemical weapons tests on prisoners), etc...

Nothing the resident did help dissuade the police of the belief he continued to operate a drug den. He bragged to his neighbors about having drugs (claiming he had WMD's to Iran), he frustrated attempts by parole officers to completely satisfy themselves that he had cleaned up his act (Inspections), and he voiced his support and admiration for anti-police organizations (al Qaeda).

Then, one day, a drug house across town exploded and killed 3,000 people in the process. You realize if you'd only busted that house sooner, you could have prevented the explosion. Then, you look at the guy arrested in 12 years earlier, consider his behavior, and his actions and say to yourself, is it worth risking another explosion?

President Bush decided no.

So, after kicking in the door, you only find drug paraphenalia in every corner of the building and a bunch of junkies. Does that mean there weren't any drugs there the day before or even as you were approaching the door??? And, does it mean you shouldn't have shut down the crack house anyway?

More and more information is coming to light that Saddam Hussein intended to continue dealing drugs -- excuse me -- pursue WMD's. He was developing relationships with terrorists organizations, he hated the United States, he was conspiring with some of our allies to degrade sanctions or get them lifted.

Given everything the President knew in March of 2003, he did the right thing...whining about whether or not the WMDs were there at the time doesn't change that fact. And, to he everlasting credit, President Clinton agrees with this opinion.

I hope you didnt think I was trying to insult you. I absolutely was not. The analogy isnt the strongest, but I understand completely what youre trying to say, which is all that really matters.

I just dont agree. Sadaam was a piece of dog , no question. But I would have been a much more avid supporter of the invasion had it not been for the lead up. If Bush came out and said "Sadaam routinely violates the resolutions he signed after his defeat in the Gulf War. The nation's soldiers tasked with patrolling the No Fly Zones are routinely shot at and sometimes downed. It is time to depose him for violations of those agreements. This would hopefully give us a foothold in the middle east to combat terrorism in the future. We also believe he may be actively seeking or even housing WMDs, with (this and this and that) as cir stantial evidence that points to that accusation. Regardless, we have the means, the will and the right to act on his constant disregard of international law."

Something to that effect. The fear-mongering of imminent attacks was bull . It was a political tactic, the sleaziest and most condemnable one could use after the fear and security changes made country wide after 9-11.

That's why I'm "entrenched" on the Iraq War. It was the right thing to do and no one has raised any issue to change my opinion on that.

Fair enough. I never said you were wrong, I said we do not agree.

[Yonivore]

So....at the end of your analogy, do the cops call in mercenaries to kill the junkies?

It's a big house and there are a few hundred thousand police officers running around to the different rooms trying to secure the building. Things are going to happen and, when they do, they'll be investigated and adjudicated.

It happened in the Abu Ghraib room and I'm confident it'll happen in the Blackwater room as well.

[Yonivore]

I hope you didnt think I was trying to insult you.

Not a all, no offense taken.

I absolutely was not. The analogy isnt the strongest, but I understand completely what youre trying to say, which is all that really matters.

I appreciate that.

I just dont agree. Sadaam was a piece of dog , no question. But I would have been a much more avid supporter of the invasion had it not been for the lead up. If Bush came out and said "Sadaam routinely violates the resolutions he signed after his defeat in the Gulf War.

He did say that.

The nation's soldiers tasked with patrolling the No Fly Zones are routinely shot at and sometimes downed.

Yep, said that too.

It is time to depose him for violations of those agreements.

Yep.

This would hopefully give us a foothold in the middle east to combat terrorism in the future.

Yep, covered.

We also believe he may be actively seeking or even housing WMDs, with (this and this and that) as cir stantial evidence that points to that accusation. Regardless, we have the means, the will and the right to act on his constant disregard of international law."

Un huh, said it.

Something to that effect.

Yes, some things, many things, to those effects. I think the disconnect comes in that the press glommed onto the WMD aspect of the equation. In addition to Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. (which, by the way, was more about justifying concerns over WMDs than justifying an invasion because of WMDs), there were speeches and pleas regarding his human rights abuses, his environmental crimes, his acts of aggression on military assets in the no-fly zone, his repeated defiance of U.N. inspectors and the nearly 2 dozen UNSC resolutions passed immediately after the '91 war and in the subsequent decade, his continued threats against Kuwait, and his stiff-backed posture toward Iran. All of these things were discussed.

I think the media agreed with those premises and, therefore, didn't see the need to play them up like the "sexy" WMD angle. But, that's just me....because, for my part, I distinctly remember the administration railing on each of the points you raised. They formed the backbone of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2002.

But, regardless of what you believe you were told, isn't the net affect the same? We deposed a horrible tyrant, are stablizing a volatile region of the world, establishing a friendly base in the middle east, and ensuring (regardless of the status of his programs in 2003) that Saddam Hussein will never possess or use WMDs again.

No?

The fear-mongering of imminent attacks was bull .

I don't think it was fear mongering. If you consider everyone believed it to be true, that Saddam Hussein himself wasn't disabusing anyone of that belief with his actions, and if you put it in the context of September 11, his arming terrorists with WMDs was a very real possibility.

It was a political tactic, the sleaziest and most condemnable one could use after the fear and security changes made country wide after 9-11.

We'll just have to disagree on this point. I think it was one of the least political moves he's made. Obviously, it's gotten him raked over the political coals, he's lost all of the political capital he amassed, and his political popularity plummetted. I don't think it was a political move at all.

Fair enough. I never said you were wrong, I said we do not agree.

I appreciate the dialog.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010731-5.html

To the Congress of the United States

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its decla-ration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the Iraqi emergency is to continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001, to the Federal Register for publication.

The crisis between the United States and Iraq that led to the declaration on August 2, 1990, of a national emergency has not been resolved. The Government of Iraq continues to engage in activities inimical to stability in the Middle East and hostile to United States interests in the region. Such Iraqi actions pose a continuing, unusual, and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to maintain in force the broad authorities necessary to apply economic pressure on the Government of Iraq.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 31, 2001.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010731-7.html

Notice: Continuation of Iraqi Emergency

On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States cons uted by the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because the Government of Iraq has continued its activities hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond August 2, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with respect to Iraq.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 31, 2001.

[Yonivore]

A Decade of Deception and Defiance

PDF Version of A Decade of Deception and Defiance

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George W. Bush's September 12th speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This do ent provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This do ent is not designed to catalogue all of the violations of UN resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons , and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations an d crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to cir vent the UN's economic sanctions.

The Administration will periodically provide information on these and other aspects of the threat posed to the international community by Saddam Hussein.

Table of Contents

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners
Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property
Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Cir vent Economic Sanctions

Please note the table of contents. I believe this is the do ent that accompanied Secretary Powell's address to the U.N., if I'm not mistaken.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020917-8.html

Saddam Hussein’s Deception and Defiance
We’ve heard “unconditional” before

Last week, the President of the United States focused the world's attention on Iraqs continued defiance of UN resolutions. Saddam Husseins regime claimed yesterday that Iraq would comply unconditionally. While this new statement is evidence that world pressure can force the Iraqi regime to respond, it is also a return to form. Time after time, without conditions has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations.

"I am pleased to inform you of the decision of the Government of the Republic of Iraq to allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." - Naji Sabri, Iraq's minister of foreign affairs, September 16, 2002 (emphasis added)

The following timeline details the Iraqi regimes repeated pattern of accepting inspections "without conditions" and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint. This information is derived from an October 1998 UNSCOM report and excerpted from http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/uns_chro.htm.

April 3, 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), Section C, declares that Iraq shall accept unconditionally, under international supervision, the "destruction, removal or rendering harmless" of its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range over 150 kilometers (emphasis added). One week later, Iraq accepts Resolution 687. Its provisions were reiterated and reinforced in subsequent action by the United Nations in June and August of 1991.

May 1991 Iraq accepts the privileges and immunities of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and its personnel. These guarantees include the right of "unrestricted freedom of entry and exit without delay or hindrance of its personnel, property, supplies, equipment ... (emphasis added)."

June 1991 Iraqi personnel fire warning shots to prevent the inspectors from approaching the vehicles.

September 1991 Iraqi officials confiscate do ents from the inspectors. The inspectors refuse to yield a second set of do ents. In response, Iraq refuses to allow the team to leave the site with these do ents. A four-day standoff ensues, but Iraq permits the team to leave with the do ents after a statement from the Security Council threatens enforcement actions.

October 11, 1991 The Security Council adopts Resolution 715, which approves joint UNSCOM and IAEA plans for ongoing monitoring and verification. UNSCOMs plan establishes that Iraq shall "accept unconditionally the inspectors and all other personnel designated by the Special Commission" (emphasis added).

October 1991 Iraq states that it considers the Ongoing Monitoring and Verification Plans adopted by Resolution 715 to be unlawful and states that it is not ready to comply with Resolution 715.

February 1992 Iraq refuses to comply with an UNSCOM/IAEA decision to destroy certain facilities used in proscribed programs and related items.

April 1992 Iraq calls for a halt to UNSCOM's aerial surveillance flights, stating that the aircraft and its pilot might be endangered. The President of the Security Council issues a statement reaffirming UNSCOM's right to conduct such flights. Iraq says that it does not intend to carry out any military action aimed at UNSCOM's aerial flights.

July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands.

November 26, 1993 Iraq accepts Resolution 715 and the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification.

October 15, 1994 The Security Council adopts Resolution 949, which demands that Iraq "cooperate fully" with UNSCOM and that it withdraw all military units deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions (emphasis added). Iraq withdraws its forces and resumes working with UNSCOM.

March 1996 Iraqi security forces refuse UNSCOM teams access to five sites designated for inspection. The teams enter the sites after delays of up to 17 hours.

March 19, 1996 The Security Council issues a presidential statement expressing its concern over Iraq's behavior, which it terms "a clear violation of Iraq's obligations under relevant resolutions." The council also demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to all sites designated for inspection (emphasis added).

March 27, 1996 Security Council Resolution 1051 approves the export/import monitoring mechanism for Iraq and demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the director-general of the IAEA (emphasis added).

June 1996 Iraq denies UNSCOM teams access to sites under investigation for their involvement in the "concealment mechanism" for proscribed items.

June 12, 1996 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1060, which terms Iraq's actions a clear violation of the provisions of the council's earlier resolutions. It also demands that Iraq grant "immediate and unrestricted access" to all sites designated for inspection by UNSCOM (emphasis added).

June 13, 1996 Despite the adoption of Resolution 1060, Iraq again denies access to another inspection team.

November 1996 Iraq blocks UNSCOM from removing remnants of missile engines for in-depth analysis outside Iraq.

June 1997 Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997 Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997 An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997 While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning do ents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

November 12, 1997 The Security Council adopts Resolution 1137, condemning Iraq for continually violating its obligations, including its decision to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with UNSCOM (emphasis added). The resolution also imposes a travel restriction on Iraqi officials who are responsible for or participated in instances of non-compliance.

November 3, 1997 Iraq demands that US citizens working for UNSCOM leave Iraq immediately.

December 22, 1997 The Security Council issues a statement calling upon the government of Iraq to cooperate fully with the commission and stresses that failure by Iraq to provide immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any site is an unacceptable and clear violation of Security Council resolutions (emphasis added)

February 20-23, 1998 Iraq signs a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations on February 23, 1998. Iraq pledges to accept all relevant Security Council resolutions, to cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and to grant to UNSCOM and the IAEA "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access for their inspections (emphasis added).

August 5, 1998 The Revolutionary Command Council and the Baath Party Command decide to stop cooperating with UNSCOM and the IAEA until the Security Council agrees to lift the oil embargo as a first step towards ending sanctions.

[Yonivore]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030316-1.html

Statement of the Atlantic Summit: A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People

Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein. His brutal regime has reduced a country with a long and proud history to an international pariah that oppresses its citizens, started two wars of aggression against its neighbors, and still poses a grave threat to the security of its region and the world.

Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the U.N. For 12 years, the international community has tried to persuade him to disarm and thereby avoid military conflict, most recently through the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1441. The responsibility is his. If Saddam refuses even now to cooperate fully with the United Nations, he brings on himself the serious consequences foreseen in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions.

In these cir stances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country. We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people -- its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others -- should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.

We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people. All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.

We will fight terrorism in all its forms. Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind.

In achieving this vision, we plan to work in close partnership with international ins utions, including the United Nations; our Allies and partners; and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption, on an urgent basis, of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. We will also propose that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim basis, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the Oil for Food program.

Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq. Our commitment to support the people of Iraq will be for the long term.

We call upon the international community to join with us in helping to realize a better future for the Iraqi people.