WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz

[GRUNHERZ]

It does give us cause to look for them and I dont belive that was possible with the insperctors setup and Saddams interfearence. According to UN resolutions and the cese fire agreement military force was always an option in case of non compliance - we elected to exercise that option in march after 12 years of giving Saddam more and more chances to come clean.

Find WMD or not, Saddams factual noncompliance is sufficient legal justifucaton for the war.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Nash
Which mobile labs Hort and Grun.... These?

"White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the discovery last month of two tractor-trailers -- fitted for high tech laboratory work -- proved they could be used to produce illicit weapons for germ warfare. No such products were found in the trucks."

Here.

[Nash]

Oh I see.

Weazel *asked* if you were referring to the mobile labs... so he didn't put words into your mouth. I kinda did, because I just assumed he was right as by the time I got there Grun had picked up the ball and was running with it. And, I asked too, in a way. I take it the answer is an emphatic "no". Fair 'nuff and noted sir. My apologies.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes I found it hillarious how the UN secured nuclear materials in Iraq - just sealed of with some sort of super secret UN duct tape....  Very safe...

Recall that Blix believed that he would have more than the 3 months he was given.  His team was concentrating on locating violations.  Once they were located and inventoried they could come back later for disposal.  If the inventory at the time of disposal did not match the count at the time of discovery they would know the Iraqis did something with the material.

But I agree, it was not the safest course of action.  Disposal teams should have begun work immediately.

It does give us cause to look for them and I dont belive that was possible with the insperctors setup and Saddams interfearence. According to UN resolutions and the cese fire agreement military force was always an option in case of non compliance - we elected to exercise that option in march after 12 years of giving Saddam more and more chances to come clean.

Find WMD or not, Saddams factual noncompliance is sufficient legal justifucaton for the war.

Yes, military action was a UN alternative to Saddam's noncompliance with UN resolutions. However, the UN did not sanction using that alternative. Therefore, the US did not act in accordance with the UN resolutions when we invaded, we specifically violated 1441, and that alone made it an illegal action in the world community.

[Syzygyone]

All you all that think we were dupped, can't have it both ways.
For you to be correct, Bush and Blair had to be part of a dastardly conspiracy to commit troops to battle based upon known false evidence, i.e. they knew there were no WMDs but said there were in order to get public support behind the war.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that they did do that.
That obviously makes them dastardly but nevertheless skilled political operatives.  Assume that you are right and that Bush and Blaid know how to manipulate public opinion with lies.

Given that, for the sake of argument, does it not also follow that if this huge conspiracy were to have been put into place, it would also include a plan to "plant" irrefutable evidence of WMDs.  Obviously they know that whatever is found will be denied and they will be accused of "planting".  But, just as obviously, they didn't plant anything that has been reported as a WMD, or, one presuumes it would have been "found" already.

So, for you guys to be right about our being duped, they were smart enough to orchestrate this grand bluff in front of the whole world, but were too dumb to complete the charade with irrefutable evidence.

I just don't buy it.  Sorry.  

I surely don't know about the WMD stuff, but, given the heisenberg uncertainty principal, that, all things being equal, the simplest solution is usualy the correct one, I am much more inclined to believe that the WMDs that were there, (even Clinton said they were there in 1998) were shipped off to Syira or Lebanon where to Oil-for-food money was used to bribe people to safeguard the WMDs.

I suspect that time will tell.

Thanks for reading!

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by crowMAW

Yes, military action was a UN alternative to Saddam's noncompliance with UN resolutions. However, the UN did not sanction using that alternative. Therefore, the US did not act in accordance with the UN resolutions when we invaded, we specifically violated 1441, and that alone made it an illegal action in the world community.

I am sorry but I I don't know where in resolution 1441 there is a requirement that enforcement of 1441 by military action must have been further "sanctioned" by the UN.  Is it not the case that a resolution carries with it an implied threat of punishment if it is not followed.  Doesn't 1441 clearly state that "serious consequences" would result for Iraq's failure to comply.  But, I just looked again and I can't find where it said thart further UN sanction was required before the "serious consequences" were put into effect.  Perhpas there is some UN rule that requires this?
Perhaps You can enlighten me?

[Rude]

I want GW held accountable just like any other US President, Republican or Democrat. If it's found he intentionally decieved the American public, then I would support his impeachment.

Having said that, those of you who think Saddam had no WMD's prior or during our dance in the UN are dishonest.

The truth of the matter is you simply don't like Bush...you don't like how he became president and like a grade school child, you rant and whine about all he does or ignore any positives which are good for the US and the World as a whole as a direct result of his actions.

Oh....and for my friends outside the US borders....get used to not having your arse kissed like Clinton was so fond of doing for you....the fact that you dislike Bush and his actions matters not in the least to me....the fact that you vent your crap on a US owned and operated BBS is ironic.

I'de cancel all of your whiney hineys accounts and let you bash the US and her President on foreign BBS....as to my American counterparts like Weazel, let her rip...you've earned the right to speak your mind and frankly although I disagree, I respect the effort.

So there!

[-dead-]

Originally posted by GScholz
No that's not what he's saying, and I'm surprised you don't see that. He's saying no first-term US President would order an attack on a country that could cause a high number of US casualties because it would be political suicide. His conclusion is that the Bush administration would not have ordered the invasion of Iraq unless they knew Iraq was a non-threat, in contradiction to what they told the world.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Show us what he's won, Marty.....

[Eagler]

think the "war" has any bearing on the Road to Peace btwn the Pals and Israelies?

think the "war" has any bearing on NK and Iran's future course of action?

If some needed an "excuse" to kick his crazy ass, they got it - I didn't. Let's roll on to the other Axis', what are we waiting for???

wtg GWB!

[Charon]

Syzy, you assume that this requires some giant "conspiracy." In fact, it's just business as usual (for both parties), perhaps carried a bit farther and based on some false assumptions in this case. In fact, none of these current accusations were secrets until now -- they were just underreported by career beltway journalists (don't want to ask the tough, unpopular questions and lose access to high ranking figures or face a career threatening public backlash for not being �patriotic�) and unopposed by cowardly Democratic legislators. The Washington Post, Frontline and Helen Thomas reported on this well before the war started but they were about the only ones.

I'm not a beltway insider, but I do regularly deal with national policy issues as a journalist covering the petroleum field. I regularly deal with lobbyists, congressional staffers and Washington agency officials (primarily EPA, DOE, EIA and in the past FEMA) and sadly this is just business as usual. For example, do you think that ethanol is being mandated in gasoline to provide "clean air" or "reduce the dependence on foreign oil?" Guess again. In fact, most people probably don't know that each gallon of ethanol used in gasoline takes $.55 out of our highway funds in the form of a subsidy to make it economical in the first place. Ethanol is good for ADM, good for farmers (at least until biomass comes on line, then they might be surprised) and good for "corn belt" senators who cannot force such legislation through, but who can block other legislation to leverage their way on this and similar issues. Even "big oil" supports this (and ethanol is a squeak work with) as a compromise related to other pork barrel legislation that favors the industry.

A similar situation exists with ANWR drilling and large portions of the current energy policy legislation, and many other less public issues. The same held true in other public issues I've encountered related to other industries during the past decade.

I have also worked in public relations for an international trade association. For those of you unfamiliar with marketing, public relations, advertising and propaganda there are books filled with case studies on media campaigns where the audience was "sold" an issue. Entire college curriculums up to the graduate level teach people how to do this. It's as American as apple pie and Chevrolet. It's universal. And if you have any skills or experience in the field, it's obvious when you see it in action. It�s actually amusing to watch the message development and the media campaign. I laughed when Bush went off-message at his last press conference before the war and said �Al Queada-like organization� referring to that group operating in Kurdish territority (he really is bad at this type of stuff). I cringed in the same[?] speech when he put �Do not destroy the oil fields� first on his list of warnings to Iraqi field commanders (above using WMD against the troops, for example) -- the speechwriter should have got his bellybutton kicked for that basic mistake.

Even though we were technically justified to undertake this action, it was never about (except in a broad metaphorical sense):

1. Al Queada. However, 40 percent of New Yorkers believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Talk about case studies, this is a glowing success.

2. WMD. Frankly, it's surprising he doesn't have any, but his WMD threat was always a regional threat particularly given the dynamics of his secular regime.

3. Liberating the Iraqi people. A nice fall back when 1 and 2 either failed to gain traction or failed to materialize.

It's about a modern bunch of McNamaras finally getting a golden opportunity to move think tank concepts into the real world to "reshape" the Middle East, and, interwoven, securing and leveraging Iraq's oil against a shaky Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, as PR 101 tells us (remember that Goering quote posted previously on the BBS - disturbing but totally accurate), these issues are too complex, esoteric and less emotionally appealing to the general public than pushing emotions like revenge and fear. It's not a mystery, and not a surprise. But it is disgusting that it is used when our soldiers� lives are on the line. That�s why I left PR for the high paying field of journalism.

Charon

[Boroda]

Originally posted by OIO
Iraq was a nation led by dictator openly hostile to the US which had developed AND USED chemical weapons, very surely had some bio's in stock (they are easier to make than chem's) and was dang well on the road to develop nuclear weapons. So:

Facts please.

Used?

When, where, against whom?

Against Islamic Republic of Iran? Sponsored by United States of North America?

Facts, please. No "everyone knows" bullsh|t please. Leave that to mr. Radio Toad.

And no "human rights" crap too, please. That "HR" freaks are fed by CIA.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Charon
Syzy, you assume that this requires some giant "conspiracy." In fact, it's just business as usual (for both parties), perhaps carried a bit farther and based on some false assumptions in this case. In fact, none of these current accusations were secrets until now -- they were just underreported by career beltway journalists (don't want to ask the tough, unpopular questions and lose access to high ranking figures or face a career threatening public backlash for not being �patriotic�) and unopposed by cowardly Democratic legislators. The Washington Post, Frontline and Helen Thomas reported on this well before the war started but they were about the only ones.

Charon

Cahron:

You make salient points but they still don't answer my question which was posed to those who suggest that we were intentionally duped.  It sure seems like if the administration was "smart enough", not just in the U.S. but the the U.K. too,  to dupe the populace, especially in light of the Post, Frontline, and Helen Thomas pressure on the WMD issues as well as the considerable opoisition to the war in the UK and worldwide, then why weren't they "smart enough" to "plant" irrefutable evidence.  

Also, these are the same people who said it could take the inspectors months, and even more than a year to find WMD violations, so why are they screaming now, only less than 8 weeks after the fall of Bahgdad, that there are obviosuly no WMDs to be found and this administration just lied to pump up support for the war.  The logic escapes me.

I don't suggest that I know the answers but that type on intellectually dishonesty is bothersome, don't you think?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
I am sorry but I I don't know where in resolution 1441 there is a requirement that enforcement of 1441 by military action must have been further "sanctioned" by the UN.  Is it not the case that a resolution carries with it an implied threat of punishment if it is not followed.  Doesn't 1441 clearly state that "serious consequences" would result for Iraq's failure to comply.  But, I just looked again and I can't find where it said thart further UN sanction was required before the "serious consequences" were put into effect.  Perhpas there is some UN rule that requires this?
Perhaps You can enlighten me?

The relevant paragraphs are (highlights are mine):

4.  DECIDES that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 AND 12 below;

11.  DIRECTS the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA to report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12.  DECIDES to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

13.  RECALLS, in that context, that the council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Clearly the intent as highlighted in paragraph 4 and 12 indicates that the UN would meet to consider what action was to be taken should Iraq be found to be in noncompliance.  The US acted without the UN's consideration as specified in paragraph 11 nor was there a recommendation from the UN to use force to ensure compliance.  

UN1441 is written as a legal document, and as any attorney will tell you, lack of specificity in paragraph 13 relating to "serious consequences" does not immediately equate to the use of military force.  

By agreeing to use the UN as an agent for monitoring and punishing Iraq (ie the policing agent), the US agreed that the UN was the appropriate authority to deal with Iraq.  Acting on a UN resolution without having been given UN authority to do so makes our action without UN legal basis and therefore illegal in the eyes of the UN.  The US acted in much the same way a vigilantly would...they suspected wrong-doing (and maybe even had some evidence to support that position) however by acting without UN authority (the agreed policing agent) our actions can be construed as criminal.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by crowMAW
The relevant paragraphs are (highlights are mine):

 delted to save space

 

Thanks for the insight Crow, I appreciate not only the info but the manner of presentation.  Now though, I would respectfully suggest that your interpretation, albeit very logically presented,  is not the only possible logical interpretation of those and other UN resolutions and that many minds, all quantum levels greater than mine, have considered your interpretation, as well as other relevant international law, and found coaltion actions to be legally defensible.  It is a question for the ages I think, and one that will be the subject of international law study for decades to come.  

But, without belabouring that issue, let me pose two other related and sequiturial questions:

a) If this was a matter of interpretation, who or what entity is to be the judge of the "proper intepretaion"  The World Court? The U.N. GA and/or the SC, neither of which are legal institutions?

b) Now that the UN SC has approved UN Resolution 1483, 14-0 with Syria missing the vote, does that somehow provide an ex post facto UN approval of the use of military force?  The UN has never before, given the winning military coaltion countries the right to control what goes on after the combat is over.

Mind you, I'm not trying to be testy here.  Just very curious

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
Now though, I would respectfully suggest that your interpretation, albeit very logically presented,  is not the only possible logical interpretation of those and other UN resolutions and that many minds, all quantum levels greater than mine, have considered your interpretation, as well as other relevant international law, and found coaltion actions to be legally defensible.  It is a question for the ages I think, and one that will be the subject of international law study for decades to come.  

Agreed...it is a question that will never have a final determination.  And no doubt there are other opinions and interpretations...the purpose of legal advocates is to find relevant justification for a party's actions.  I do believe that it would be damned hard for anyone to successfully argue that paragraph 13 has sufficient specificity to indicate invasion.  The folks in the UN who crafted that language knew that it's lack of specificity would leave the question of the type of punitive response open for a later decision.

a) If this was a matter of interpretation, who or what entity is to be the judge of the "proper intepretaion"  The World Court? The U.N. GA and/or the SC, neither of which are legal institutions?[/B]

I don't believe there is an entity that would be able to hear legal advocates present their interpretations.

Ideally, this kind of action would be handled by the UN/SC.  Consider a scenario where if instead of the US invading Iraq, Iran had invaded using the same arguments that the US used.  Would the UN/SC have stepped in to the situation?  Probably.  Iraq thought it had a perfectly good reason for invading Kuwait (they were stealing Iraqi oil) and they believed they had tacit US approval.  However, we know what the UN's reaction was to that aggression.  

The only reason there will be no action or sanction against the US is because we sit on the UN/SC.

And this also causes a huge problem for the UN.  If it is to function, all who agree to utilize it must also agree to abide by its decisions or face sanction.  Without that enforcement tool, there is no incentive for any member to hold their ambitions in check.  As we have seen, India has already asked why it should not follow the US precedent and invade Pakistan.

b) Now that the UN SC has approved UN Resolution 1483, 14-0 with Syria missing the vote, does that somehow provide an ex post facto UN approval of the use of military force?  The UN has never before, given the winning military coaltion countries the right to control what goes on after the combat is over.

Is it ex post facto approval or simply capitulation to the real politik of the situation?  Bush made it clear when he stated that the UN will have to decide if it wants to be a relevant player in world politics.  Bush demonstrated that the UN can capitulate to the US or the US will do what it wants anyway.  It appears that the only way the UN can hope to be a relevant player in the future is to do what the US wants now.

Personally, I think the UN is toast as a world player.  It has lost it's appearance of independence and it has lost any credibility that its members would abide by it's determinations achieved by concensus.  That is somewhat too bad, as it did have some useful aspects as world arbiter.