THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Much of the 'funds' are marked for use in the war on terror, not exclusive to Afghanistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/26/international/europe/26CND-BLAI.html?hp

Being ambassadors and such, it's not likely the criticism from these 52 experienced and knowledgeable voices will have begun with, "You ninnies!", but it could have.

blatham, What chance do you think Kerry has to unite the UN to take on the responsibility on Iraq?

Steve, when I try to imagine if the Bush administration "knew" anything about 9/11 before it happened, what comes to mind is all of the scenarios (scenaria?) described in intel reports that were read by the top honchos and that we are now seeing in the press. These reports would have created a backdrop in their minds but not an alarm....more like a slide show of possibilities. When the actual events on 9/11 took place, anyone who had seen all of this intel would be struck by a sense of Ah, yes. This is it. Bush was not exactly surprised, I think. He probably had a sense of sudden and profound understanding when he heard the news. The fuzzy picture suddenly came into focus.

As critical as I am of this administration and its plans and policies, I do not think any other administration would have seen 9/11 coming. Those events were so unlike anything that had ever happened in our country or could have been thought to happen that we were blind to the possibilies, no matter how specific the intel.

c.i., this is an interesting question. Surely, it would be with fear and foreboding that the UN would take on this role. However, if the US troops formed a unit under UN command, along with troops from a number of other countries, this type of international security force might dodge some of the anti-US feeling in the country. The US would never allow its troops out of its control, of course, so this is pie-in-the-sky thinking.

ALICE IN TERRORIST WONDERLAND

Yes, why didn't those F16s just shoot down that airliner right over the City of Washington, D.C. so as to prevent it from crossing the Potomac River and crashing into the Pentagon? How CONSPIRATORIAL can those F16s get?

None of those 67 scrambles shot down anything! What a waste! Even in the Paine Stewart Case, they didn't shoot down his Lear Jet, but merely let it crash on its own--even though everyone was already dead on board--away from populated areas. Just plain damn CONSPIRATORIAL.



You clearly have a right to ask those questions even though it isn't right to ask those questions when the truthful answers are self-evident.

You clearly have a right to truthful answers when you can recognize truthful answers when you get them.

If the Iraq problem were turned over to the UN in 2004 with the full encouragement of the US, why would you expect a different outcome than when the the Palestinian problem was turned over to the UN in 1948 with the full encouragement of Britiain?

ican wrote

To make ican's argument another way...why might we expect a different outcome in Iraq under continuing US control than we have found in Afghanistan, or in any of the many other locales where US presence concerned itself with itself, and little else.

ci

There is no other option. The US is not capable - militarily, economically, or philosophically - of running the world. Not to mention that the rest of the world doesn't wish it. Unilateralism is a foolish and dangerous utopian delusion. The neoconservative crowd is living proof of the what happens when democrats get frustrated, then join the Republican party, and carry forward the Platonic understanding of control by elites.

As so many sober and educated voices argued against this project from the time it first appeared a possibility, and as so many of those voices have proved correct as regards 1) that Iraq posed no imminent threat, and 2) that the military action could go very bad, and 3) that the Israel/Palestine issue had to be resolved, and 4) that a possible or probable rise in recruitment for extremist Islam would be a consequence of both the attack on Iraq and the continuing issue in Palestine, and 5) that this war was going to get prosecuted no matter what because those in power in the administration wished it, then there is a very sad irony in this administration's policy of blaming everyone else but themselves, and in their cap in hand approach to the UN or to those other states who had told them their project was unhinged.

But as Michael Ignatieff said last evening on Cspan..."It is way too late for irony." This is the US's problem, and it is a problem which can't go unsolved, but the US cannot solve it. The only possible positive value we might retrieve from this debacle (other than Sadaam's removal) is the humbling and discreditation of this neoconservative cabal, and their arrogant policy of unilateralism.

Imagine, as I've said before, what might have been achieved if these billions of dollars, and all the personnel who have been so mis-utilized in preparation for and execution of this war had been directed towards the goal of making a truly effective United Nations.

I'm in total agreement; but with the current politics in the US, I have very little hope for change, since the majority of Americans still think Bush will handle this problem better than Kerry.

CI

Confidence in Bush, and in his administration's judgement and honesty, has been on a steady decline for many months. That decline seems likely to continue as more bad news and more deceits come to the fore.

As this administration is utterly incapable of confessing that they've been in error, and as they continue to be driven by extremist ideologies both domestic and foreign, it seems hard to imagine anyone doing worse than they have done, and it is quite easy to imagine that if they gain a further four years, that the US will put itself in grave peril.

So, let's hope that foolishness is not a permanent condition.

It was encouraging to see women finally speak out against this administration - 750,000 demonstrators in DC is quite impressive. I hope that translates into votes for anybody but Bushie boy. The decline for Bush is too slow for my comfort level; it was a little up this past week.

It varies, but the trend is steadily towards sanity.

The Iraqis are terrorists in the sense that the Minutemen were terrorists in 1775.

It appears that Mr. Blatham may feel that all American voters share his brilliance, his superb analysis of issues and his reasoning power. I am quite sure that they do not. If the economy is doing fairly well in November and the situation in Iraq is only slightly improved, the American voter will not turn out a known quantity like President Bush for a Senator who has been on all three sides of every issue and has shown that he has absolutely no charisma.
Mr. Blatham forgets that the American voter does not have the insights amply demostrated by the voters in Canada. Any astute observer will agree that the people in Canada are much more aware of the issues involved when they vote. At least half of the American voting public, it must be remembered, are in the lower half of the intelligence score distribution.

Analysis reveals that as many as 800,000 people attended the rally for Abortion rights. News reports also alluded to the fact that 1,400 organizations send members to DC. This is only about 5,000 members per organization. It may indeed be correct that we are losing the loyalty we have to our groups. I am sure they could have done much better than 5,000 per organization if people cared a lot more.
Why, NOW alone should have been able to recruit 500,000!!!!!

Hmmmm...whom does this sound like? Wonder when he'll start quoting Posner?

Tuesday April 27, 2004
The Guardian

Dear Prime Minister,
We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the UN to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.

We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others including Steve 41oo (ambassador to A2K 2002- )

This is interesting. Firstly it is half, not at least half, as half can't be more than half, by definition.

Secondly the implication seems to be that dummies vote Republican. But someone with a lower than average IQ is not inherently more likely to vote one way or another. But they are, I believe, more likely to be influenced by propaganda disguised as news and manipulated into voting for a particular party. It is imo only the confluence of apathy, material distraction and subtle or not so subtle brain washing that keeps someone like George II in the White House.

Get a medal George and Dick ........ then bitch


(April 27, 2004 -- 02:35 AM EDT // link // print)

I've never quite understood all the arcana of the Bush Air National Guard story, so I never know quite what to make of new reports. But there's an article out in Salon on Tuesday which makes a pretty straightforward case that the 'complete' service record the White House released last February, actually wasn't complete at all.

Here are the key grafs ...

The president and his staff are doing a very good job of convincing the public he has released all of his National Guard records and that they prove he was responsible during his time in Alabama and Texas. But the critical documents have still not been seen. The mandatory written report about Bush's grounding is mysteriously not in the released file, nor is any other disciplinary evidence. A document showing a "roll-up," or the accumulation of his total retirement points, is also absent, and so are his actual pay stubs. If the president truly wanted to end the conjecture about his time in the Guard, he would allow an examination of his pay stubs and any IRS W-2 forms from his Guard years. These can be pieced together to determine when he was paid and whether he earned enough to have met his sworn obligations.

...

Unlike lawyers, journalists pay little attention to concepts like chain of custody for evidence. In the case of the president's Guard records, whoever possessed them and had the motive and opportunity to clean them up is a critical question. When Bush left the Guard about a half year early to attend Harvard Business School, his hard-copy record was retained in a military personnel records jacket at the Austin offices of the Texas Guard. Eventually, those documents were committed to microfiche. A copy of the microfiche was then sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Those records are considered private, and they cannot be released to anyone without the signature of the serviceman or woman. The White House has never indicated that Bush has signed the authorization form. And this is what prompts unending suspicion.

The documents given to Washington reporters were printed from one of those two microfiches. According to two separate sources within the Guard who saw the printout and spoke with me, the microfiche was shipped to the office of Maj. Gen. Danny James, commander of the Air National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. James' staff printed out all of the documents on the film and then, according to those same sources, James vetted the material. Subsequent to being scrutinized by James (who commanded the Texas Guard and was promoted to Washington by Bush,) the records were then sent to the White House for further scrutiny prior to release to the news media.

This is a considerably different process from what was practiced by Sen. John McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign ... McCain signed a release form, and his entire record, a stack of papers more than a foot tall, was made available to reporters without being vetted by the campaign.

Needless to say, the aforementioned James is the same James who is accused of assisting in scrubbing the paper copies of the president's record back in 1997 -- a charge that is of course roundly denied, but which is also discussed at some length in the Salon piece.

Now, as I say, I just don't know the details of all this well enough any more to make a judgment about these various claims and accusations.

But why exactly can't the president just release his records the way McCain did?

And, is that story about James getting a chance to go over these files true? If it is, I'd say some scribblers in town got suckered.

Big time, as the vice president would say. -- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

I have imagined this. I foresee it as another fool's errand, because I have no idea how one can within say the next 20 years, make "a truly effective United Nations" with "these billions of dollars, and all the personnel who have been so mis-utilized." In the short run, say within the next 5 years, the human race better have cured or at least stabilized our terrorist cultural cancer, or "a truly effective United Nations" should it ever come to pass will have little to be effective about.

For its own good, whether they like US methods or not, whether they like the US or not, the rest of the nations of the world not currently participating, better join in the curing/killing of this cancer or we are all doomed. You are right we cannot succeed alone; we cannot succeed while so much of the rest of the world cowers in fear and senseless grousing hoping to be the last to be infected.

The United Nations is a misnomer. The membership is not currently united. It is not currently united against what is an obvious common threat to all humanity. It is no better suited to deal with this type cancer than was the League of Nations prior to WWII. The best way to help the US to be more effective is for you and your countrymen to be more effective in eradicating this cancer. Your influence will remain of little measure until you join in and at least help to police whatever requires policing.