0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't have a clue OE. He hadn't been on my radar screen at all. But as bad as British and U.S. intelligence was, they didn't get everything wrong. Smile


Fair enough, Foxy! But still, just looking at what we know: Do you believe in a Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:13 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know a single soul here on A2K, not even the most passionately right leaning among us, who does not have some issue or quarrel with our President. I certainly do. And he and my elected state officials hear from me quite regularly when I do.


That's nice. But why is it WE never hear from you regarding your "quarrels" with Bush?

Quote:
Since you seem to think we should not be supportive of our elected leaders, does it follow that you are not supportive of yours? If that is the case, I really think that's an unpleasant situation and one I would not want.


Unless, of course, a "neo-lib gangbanger" were in office, right? Was it unpleasant when you bashed Clinton during his tenure as President? Laughing

Fox, do you ever really listen to yourself? I think that's probably the nicest way for a neocon to say "you better watch what you say or do when criticizing George W. Bush."

Believe or not, many of us do not support a man who sent our sons and daughters to die over oil; who had 9/11 happen on HIS watch and his immediate response to it; who is doing everything he can to privatize effective social programs rather than honestly debating the problems; who has the most secret administration in history; who hates homosexuals; who doesn't care about bin Laden (unless asked by reporters); who doesn't care about outing CIA agents (a felony); who doesn't care about fake gay escort journalists getting carte blanche into the White House press room; etc., etc., etc...

So, because this man doesn't seem to care about anything other than his political "capital" (which he thought he had after his re-selection), then expect MANY of us liberal progressives to express our utter distaste for this stupid man who has been propped up for over 4 years by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:35 pm
OE writes
Quote:
Fair enough, Foxy! But still, just looking at what we know: Do you believe in a Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection?


I definitely do believe in an al-Qaida-Iraq connection and this has been confirmed by many different sources including our own widely publicized 9/11 Commission. (The Commission did not make a correlation re any cooperation between Iraq and al Qaida re 9/11, but there had been contact.) There has been other testimony re evidence of al Qaida training camp or camps in norther Iraq and other incidential contact. I think, given their mutual hatred of the United States, it seems way beyond probability that there was no contact between al Qaida and the Hussein regime.

Do I think Saddam Hussein helped plot and carry out 9/11? I do not believe there is any evidence that he did. Did Hussein help finance it? Given his propensity to fund terrorist groups that is possible but there is no proof of it.

I think al Qaida has been very much involved in terrorist groups operating inside Iraq since the initial invasion.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:38 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I think al Qaida has been very much involved in terrorist groups operating inside Iraq since the initial invasion.


Key words in bold... :wink:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:41 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I think, given their mutual hatred of the United States, it seems way beyond probability that there was no contact between al Qaida and the Hussein regime.


re 'mutual hatred': I've met people in Bolivia that share Al Qaeda's hatred of the US.
But, that's not a connection whatsoever, for Chrissakes.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:44 pm
Enough ranting, must go to bed!

But, please, enlighten me, everybody:

What's the connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?


Maybe people on a2k can provide more inf than the WH...

'gnight!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 11:46 pm
It seems Saddam allowed al Qaida to set up camps in norhtern Iraq where Saddam was restricted from entering.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 12:28 am
G'nite OE and everybody. (P.S. Ican has posted reams of evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaida on this thread but at least most of it is way way back in the thread.

And there is no way anybody would confuse the 9/11 Commission with the Bush administration. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 05:56 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005


It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 06:16 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html

Looting at Iraqi Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Official Says
By JAMES GLANZ and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: March 13, 2005


Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 12 - In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said it appeared that a highly organized operation had pinpointed specific plants in search of valuable equipment, some of which could be used for both military and civilian applications, and carted the machinery away.

Dr. Araji said his account was based largely on observations by government employees and officials who either worked at the sites or lived near them.

"They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting."

The threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq, but the installations were left largely unguarded by allied forces in the chaotic months after the invasion.

Dr. Araji's statements came just a week after a United Nations agency disclosed that approximately 90 important sites in Iraq had been looted or razed in that period.

Satellite imagery analyzed by two United Nations groups - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or Unmovic - confirms that some of the sites identified by Dr. Araji appear to be totally or partly stripped, senior officials at those agencies said. Those officials said they could not comment on all of Dr. Araji's assertions, because the groups had been barred from Iraq since the invasion.

For nearly a year, the two agencies have sent regular reports to the United Nations Security Council detailing evidence of the dismantlement of Iraqi military installations and, in a few cases, the movement of Iraqi gear to other countries. In addition, a report issued last October by the chief American arms inspector in Iraq, Charles A. Duelfer, told of evidence of looting at crucial sites.

The disclosures by the Iraqi ministry, however, added new information about the thefts, detailing the timing, the material taken and the apparent skill shown by the thieves.

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons.

After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Dr. Araji said he had no evidence regarding where the equipment had gone. But his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.

"Targeted looting of this kind of equipment has to be seen as a proliferation threat," said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, a private nonprofit organization in Washington that tracks the spread of unconventional weapons.

Dr. Araji said he believed that the looters themselves were more interested in making money than making weapons.

The United Nations, worried that the material could be used in clandestine bomb production, has been hunting for it, largely unsuccessfully, across the Middle East. In one case, investigators searching through scrap yards in Jordan last June found specialized vats for highly corrosive chemicals that had been tagged and monitored as part of the international effort to keep watch on the Iraqi arms program. The vessels could be used for harmless industrial processes or for making chemical weapons.

American military officials in Baghdad did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the findings. But American officials have said in the past that while they were aware of the importance of some of the installations, there was not enough military personnel to guard all of them during and after the invasion.

White House officials, apprised of the Iraqi account by The New York Times, said it was already well known that many weapons sites had been looted. They had no other comment.

Daily Looting Reports
Many of Iraq's weapons sites are clustered in an area from Baghdad's southern outskirts to roughly the town of Iskandariya, about 30 miles south. Dr. Araji, who like many others at the Industry Ministry kept going to work immediately after the invasion, was able to collect observations of the organized looting from witnesses who went to the ministry in Baghdad each day.

The Industry Ministry also sent teams of engineers to the looted sites in August and September of 2003 as part of an assessment undertaken for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim American-led administrative apparatus. By then, virtually all of the most refined equipment was gone, Dr. Araji said.

The peak of the organized looting, Dr. Araji estimates, occurred in four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 as teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. That operation was followed by rounds of less discriminating thievery.
"The first wave came for the machines," Dr. Araji said. "The second wave, cables and cranes. The third wave came for the bricks."

Hajim M. al-Hasani, the minister of industry, referred questions about looting to Dr. Araji, who commented during a lengthy interview conducted in English in his office on Wednesday and a brief phone interview on Friday.

Dr. Araji said that if the equipment had left the country, its most likely destination was a neighboring state.

David Albright, an authority on nuclear weaponry who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said that Syria and Iran were the countries most likely to be in the market for the kind of equipment that Mr. Hussein purchased, at great cost, when he was secretly trying to build a nuclear weapon in the 1980's.
Losses at Enrichment Site

As examples of the most important sites that were looted, Dr. Araji cited the Nida Factory, the Badr General Establishment, Al Ameer, Al Radwan, Al Hatteen, Al Qadisiya and Al Qaqaa. Al Radwan, for example, was a manufacturing plant for the uranium enrichment program, with enormous machine tools for making highly specialized parts, according to the Wisconsin Project. The Nida Factory was implicated in both the nuclear program and the manufacture of Scud missiles.

Al Qaqaa, with some 1,100 structures, manufactured powerful explosives that could be used for conventional missile warheads and for setting off a nuclear detonation. Last fall, Iraqi government officials warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that some 377 tons of those explosives were missing after the invasion. But Al Qaqaa also contained a wide variety of weapons manufacturing machinery, including 800 pieces of chemical equipment.

The kinds of machinery at the various sites included equipment that could be used to make missile parts, chemical weapons or centrifuges essential for enriching uranium for atom bombs. All of that "dual use" equipment also has peaceful applications - for example, a tool to make parts for a nuclear implosion device or for a powerful commercial jet turbine.

Mr. Hussein's rise to power in Iraq culminated in his military building not only deadly missiles but many unconventional arms. After the 1991 gulf war, international inspectors found that Baghdad was close to making an atom bomb and had succeeded in producing thousands of biological and chemical warheads.

Starting in 1991, the United Nations began destroying Iraq's unconventional arms and setting up a vast effort to monitor the country's industrial infrastructure to make sure that Baghdad lived up to its disarmament promises. The International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, was put in charge of nuclear sites, and Unmovic, based in New York, was given responsibility for chemical and biological plants as well as factories that made rockets and missiles.

A Western diplomat familiar with satellite reconnaissance done by the International Atomic Energy Agency said it confirmed some of the Iraqi findings. For instance, he said, it showed that the Nida Factory had been partly destroyed, with some buildings removed, and some rebuilt. He added that the Badr General Establishment was almost entirely dismantled.

By contrast, he said, the agency's photo analysts found Al Ameer untouched, but only as seen from overhead. "The buildings could be totally empty," he said.

The diplomat added that the atomic energy agency's reconnaissance team found that Al Radwan was "significantly dismantled" and that Al Qadisiya had almost vanished. At the sprawling Hatteen base, he said, "parts are untouched, and parts are 100 percent gone."

Before the invasion, the United Nations was monitoring those kinds of sites. Two senior officials of the monitoring commission said in an interview that their agency's analysis of satellite reconnaissance photos of Iraq showed visible looting and destruction at five of the seven sites that had been cited by Dr. Araji.

The officials cautioned that the agency zeroed in on certain buildings of special interest in its monitoring work on unconventional weapons and that other structures or warehouses at a particular identified site might still be intact.

"You might have a place with 100 buildings but we'd have an interest in only 3 of them," an official said.

Officials at the United Nations monitoring agency said some areas of the sprawling Qaqaa installation involved in chemical processing had been wrecked by fire and possible extensive looting. Unknown is the fate of such equipment there like separators, heat exchangers, mixers and chemical reactors, all of which can be used in making chemical weapons.

The Badr General Establishment, they said, had been systematically razed. "It's fairly significant," one official said of the looting and disappearance of important buildings.

The Radwan site has been dismantled, they said, with the destruction quite extensive. And the Qadisiya small arms plant has been razed, they said, as have the buildings the agency monitored at the sprawling Hatteen installation. The two officials said the agency had no information on the condition of the Nida Factory or the Ameer site.

No Saudi or Iranian Replies
The recent monitoring agency report said Unmovic had asked Iraq's neighbors if they were aware of whether any equipment under agency monitoring had moved in or through their countries. Syrian officials, it said, replied that "no relevant scrap from Iraq had passed through Syria." The agency, the report added, had yet to receive a response from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Hasani, the Iraqi industry minister, said the sites of greatest concern had been part of the Military Industrialization Commission, a department within the ministry until it became a separate entity in the 1990's. The commission, widely known as the M.I.C., was dissolved after the fall of Baghdad, and responsibility for its roughly 40 sites was divided between the ministries of industry and finance, Dr. Hasani said. "We got 11 of them," he said.

Dr. Araji, whose tenure with the ministry goes back to the 1980's, is now involved in plans to use the sites as manufacturing centers in what the ministry hopes will be a new free-market economy in Iraq. He said that disappointment at losing such valuable equipment was a prime reason that the ministry was determined to speak frankly about what had happened.

"We talk straight about these matters, because it's a sad thing that this took place in Iraq," Dr. Araji said. "We need anything that could support us here."

"When you have good factories that could support that move and that transformation," he said, "it would be good for the economy of the country."

In an interview, a senior atomic energy agency official said the agency had used the reconnaissance photos to study roughly 100 sites in Iraq but that the imagery's high cost meant that the inspectors could afford to get updates of individual sites only about once a year.

In its most recent report to the United Nations Security Council, in October, the agency said it "continues to be concerned about the widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement that has taken place at sites previously relevant to Iraq's nuclear program."

Alarms to Security Council
Agency inspectors, in visiting other countries, have discovered tons of industrial scrap, some radioactively contaminated, from Iraq, the report noted. It added, however, that the agency had been unable to track down any of the high-quality, dual-use equipment or materials.

"The disappearance of such equipment," the report emphasized, "may be of proliferation significance."

The monitoring commission has filed regular reports to the Security Council since raising alarms last May about looting in Iraq, the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states.

Officials of the commission and the atomic energy agency have repeatedly called on the Iraqi government to report on what it knows of the fate of the thousands of pieces of monitored equipment and stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials.

Last fall, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, put public pressure on the interim Iraqi government to start the process of accounting for nuclear-related materials still ostensibly under the agency's supervision. Iraq is obliged, he wrote to the president of the Security Council on Oct. 1, to declare semiannually changes that have occurred or are foreseen.

In interviews, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency said the two agencies had heard nothing from Baghdad - with one notable exception. On Oct. 10, the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology wrote to the atomic agency to say a stockpile of high explosives at Al Qaqaa had been lost because of "theft and looting."

During the American presidential election last fall, news of that letter ignited a political firestorm. Privately, officials of the monitoring commission and the atomic energy agency have speculated on whether the political uproar made Baghdad reluctant to disclose more details of looting.


James Glanz reported from Baghdad for this article, and William J. Broad from New York. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.



[bolded parts added by me]
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 06:19 am
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UOZYRROBDEUH0CRBAE0CFFA?type=topNews&storyID=7884565

BAGHDAD/ARBIL (Reuters) - Talks between Kurdish leaders and a Shi'ite bloc to form the next Iraqi government have collapsed three days before the country's first fully elected parliament meets, senior politicians said on Sunday.

Between them the two groups have the two-thirds majority needed to form the government and their failure to reach a deal could leave Iraq in political limbo and further delay efforts to improve security and rebuild the country.

Ahmad Chalabi, a leading member of the Shi'ite bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, returned empty-handed on Saturday from a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan to try and save the proposed Kurdish-Shi'ite alliance.

"The meetings have collapsed. There was no deal," an aide to Chalabi told Reuters.

Kurdish politicians went further, saying the Shi'ite alliance was trying to blame them for the crisis that has paralyzed decision-making in a country plagued by guerrilla bombings and starved of investment needed for rebuilding.

"They want to lay the responsibility for the political equation solely on the Kurdish side," interim Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd, told al-Arabiya television.

"We are willing to sacrifice the presidency to the Shi'ites if the Shi'ites sacrifice the premiership to a Sunni," Salih said ironically, reflecting Iraq's failure to put aside sectarian divisions cultivated by toppled leader Saddam Hussein.

((Reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Baghdad and Shamal Akrawi in Arbil, editing by Alistair Lyon)
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 08:02 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well my initial quarrell was with the author of the piece, that's true, Geli. The article is inflammatory and, as presented, made no case for the conclusion Revel drew from it. Revel insisted on concluding that a case was made. Obill showed how no case was made much more skillfully than I did. That's about it.


Quote:
Revel insisted on concluding that a case was made. Obill showed how no case was made much more skillfully than I did. That's about it.

Thank you for providing the answer I couldn't drag out of Bill, who insisted there was a problem but when pressed to identify it wouldn't ..... or couldn't.

Try reading your last three sentences (above) with the thought in mind 'everyone has the right to draw their own conclusions, right or wrong'.

It's not like George say's, providing the answer with the question .... either you are with us or against us
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 08:44 am
Well I don't see how my answer was in the least different from Obill's Geli. Nor do I think your mini lecture on rights of others to draw opinions in any way pertinent to the discussion. Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 09:40 am
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/12/wsaddam12.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/12/ixworld.html

Saddam's $2m offer to WMD inspector
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 12/03/2005)

Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy.

Mr Ekeus told Reuters news agency that he had passed the information to the Volcker Commission. "I told the Volcker people that Tariq [Aziz] said a couple of million was there if we report right. My answer was, 'That is not the way we do business in Sweden.' "

A clean report from Mr Ekeus's inspectors would have been vital in lifting sanctions against Saddam's regime. But the inspectors never established what had happened to the regime's illicit weapons and never gave Iraq a clean bill of health.

The news that Iraq attempted to bribe a top UN official is a key piece of evidence for investigators into the scandal surrounding the oil-for-food programme. It proves that Iraq was offering huge sums of cash to influential foreigners in return for political favours.

Nile Gardiner, of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, who has followed the inquiries, said: "It's the tip of the iceberg of what the Iraqis were offering. For every official like Ekeus who turned down a bribe, there are many more who will have been tempted by it."

Saddam and his henchmen siphoned off an estimated £885 million from the humanitarian scheme, allegedly paying some of that to 270 foreign politicians, officials and journalists.

Most of those alleged to have been involved in the scandal, including the former head of the programme, Benon Sevan, have denied that they did anything wrong.

A United States Senate report said that Mr Sevan had committed criminal acts by soliciting oil contracts, while the Volcker commission said that he had failed to explain $160,000 (£83,000) paid into personal bank accounts while he was the head of the programme.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gosh, wonder why Saddam would need to bribe someone to give him a clean report on WMD???
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 09:45 am
Two interesting things in today's posts. Revel posts a piece on removal of sophisticating weapons making equipment from Iraqi factories and she has bolded lines which I assume she thinks are the parts that make the U.S. look bad. However, the information in this piece gives strong credence to WMD and WMD-making capabilities does it not and also credence to our claims that convoys of stuff did leave Iraq shortly after the invasion; two things for which Revel (and some others) have consistently stated there was no proof.

And now JW posts a piece suggesting payoffs to members of the inspection team. This would be the same inspection team that said they should have more time? That along with the serious allegations re the OFF scandal is sure stacking up to provide strong insights into why the U.N. was so reluctant to enforce its own resolutions.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 09:53 am
Foxy - whatcha want to bet the answer to my question can be found in..................Syria ??

Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 09:54 am
Foxfyre wrote:
And now JW posts a piece suggesting payoffs to members of the inspection team.


Could you point at where this posts says so?

Foxfyre wrote:
This would be the same inspection team that said they should have more time?


The above mention Telegaraph article (the original reuters report doesn't seem to be online anymore nor can I find it in reuters archives) clearly say
Quote:
Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, ...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 10:09 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The above mention Telegaraph article (the original reuters report doesn't seem to be online anymore nor can I find it in reuters archives)


There was a similar article in the NY Post:

Quote:
WEAPONS-PROBE BOSS: IRAQ TRIED TO BRIBE ME
Source
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 10:24 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well I don't see how my answer was in the least different from Obill's Geli. Nor do I think your mini lecture on rights of others to draw opinions in any way pertinent to the discussion. Smile


arrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh
Had to get that out of my system.
Where is it written that your opinion is the only correct opinion regardless of whether it is based on fact or fiction? I askedBill to point to a disputable fact and all he could come up with was essentially ' well if you don't know I can't tell you' ..... so I ask you, realizing that the only 'facts' would be contained in the article, what fact is in dispute. If you answer " I know the facts' then list said facts.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 10:32 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Two interesting things in today's posts. Revel posts a piece on removal of sophisticating weapons making equipment from Iraqi factories and she has bolded lines which I assume she thinks are the parts that make the U.S. look bad. However, the information in this piece gives strong credence to WMD and WMD-making capabilities does it not and also credence to our claims that convoys of stuff did leave Iraq shortly after the invasion; two things for which Revel (and some others) have consistently stated there was no proof.

And now JW posts a piece suggesting payoffs to members of the inspection team. This would be the same inspection team that said they should have more time? That along with the serious allegations re the OFF scandal is sure stacking up to provide strong insights into why the U.N. was so reluctant to enforce its own resolutions.


Why do you assume that anyone is interested in your assumptions?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 02:30:11