Neil Brooks <
[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Wow. So those 17 UN Resolutions (or was it 21?) were just Cliff Notes?
>
>If we had abided the UN Resolutions (in this case, allowing Blix's
>inspections to proceed), we might have been in an exceedingly
>different place right now. As it stands, we offered inviolable
>certitude that WMD did exist. We stopped short of actually providing
>Blix with the proof that underlay that certitude, however.
Blix's own inspectors did a pretty good job (more on that later).
>Instead, we invoked the appropriate legal authority (UN), then--when
>we didn't like the results they were getting (or became frustrated
>that Blix told the media he felt the US and GB had overtly exaggerated
>the 'gathering threat'), we said, "Step aside, Hans. We know best
>here." (Roughly 2/03). Blix wanted a few more months.
Blix would have ALWAYS wanted a few more months, and it didn't matter
anyway since France had already declared that they would veto ANY
resolution to use force anyway (gee, I wonder if it had anything to do
with those millions of Iraqi oil dollars flowing through their
government officials?).
>Ritter might have credibility problems (he indicated that--due to
>chemical half-life issues--the chemical weapons had been rendered
>inert over time).
>
>David Kay ("Don't think they existed")
>
>(Charles) Duelfer Report (no WMD. No serious production effort since
>'91. If we dropped sanctions, he might restart the program (don't
>drop sanctions), Saddam had been fooling his top brass into believing
>that he /did/ have WMD).
>
>Blix . . . well, he seems pretty ok. But the sum total of all these
>teams' opinions seems pretty consistent.
They were three dissenting opinions.
In the March 6, 2003 UNMOVIC Unresolved WMD Issues report, the UN
inspectors, among MANY other findings of likely WMD and production
capacity said:
"Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that
about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still
exist."
And then there's this...
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),
Oct 10, 2002
I just thought she summed it all up so nicely. ;-)
>What other nations 'believed' prior to the invasion was just that:
>belief. Few offered concrete proof. The belief spread like wildfire
>throughout many nations' intelligence communities, picking up not a
>whiff of substantive proof along the way.
Given the circumstances, obtaining "proof" could have been an
impossible task (the secrecy within Saddam's regime is legendary).
>While the Committee (CICUSRWMD) did conclude that the intelligence was
>NOT overtly politicized, they also concluded that GWB's administration
>fostered an "environment that did not encourage skepticism about the
>conventional wisdom." A similar conclusion was reached by the British
>government vis-a-vis their investigation.
If by "British government" you mean the ONE miltiary dude's opinion,
then yes. That's been pretty thoroughly kicked around already.
>I would have waited for Blix to do his job and kept the gauntlet in
>place . . . but that's just me.
I agree that it would have been MUCH better had the UN done what the
UN is supposed to do - but it wasn't going to happen, and with
France's guaranteed veto it was a matter of either taking out Saddam
(something that was clearly going to happen sooner or later, with the
US doing most of the heavy lifting anyway), or waiting to see if the
intelligence WAS true.
At the time, I could imagine NO reason to trust a despot who'd already
tried to assassinate a US President, openly supported terrorists, and
who had admitted having vast stores of WMD years earlier (and had used
them years prior to that).
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
