Tory poll surge as trust in Blair collapses

Daily Telegraph

[may18]

By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent (Filed: 30/05/2003)

The first signs of a solidly-based Tory recovery for a decade are revealed today in an opinion poll that shows a collapse of trust in Tony Blair is beginning to hurt Labour.

A YouGov survey for The Telegraph puts the Conservatives just one point behind Labour, their highest poll rating since 1992 apart from a blip during the fuel crisis in the autumn of 2000.

The results are a further shot in the arm for Iain Duncan Smith four weeks after the Conservatives gained 561 council seats to become the largest party in local government in England. Tory strategists insisted last night that they still had much to do but claimed that policies on university funding, taxation and Europe were striking a chord with voters.

For the first time since Mr Duncan Smith became leader in September 2001, more voters - 19 per cent - believe he would be a better prime minister than the 15 per cent who back Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader.

Click to enlarge The Tories also lie just one point behind Labour on the issue of economic competence, one of Labour's strongest cards at the 2001 general election. The findings will cause alarm in Labour ranks at a time when Mr Blair is under pressure from his backbenchers and the party rank and file to explain why no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

The YouGov survey puts Labour on 37 per cent, down three points, the Conservatives on 36 per cent, up four per cent, and the Liberal Democrats on 20 per cent, down one per cent.

A month ago, when the Government was enjoying a post-war rise in popularity - the so-called "Baghdad bounce" - the gap between Labour and Conservatives was eight points.

The Tories' recent pledge to abolish student tuition fees appears to be having a positive influence. Their proposals stand in contrast to Labour's plans to allow universities to charge up to £3,000 a year for courses.

Although 52 per cent of voters agreed that universities are "chronically underfunded", 43 per cent said they were "more sympathetic to the Conservatives" after their promise to scrap tuition fees. Among parents and students the figure was 53 per cent.

Even more worrying for Mr Blair is the dramatic fall in trust in his Government.

Just 29 per cent think that, on balance, the Government has been honest and trustworthy - almost half the level, 56 per cent, of the 2001 election. On the other hand, 62 per cent said it was not honest - more than double the 2001 level.

Mr Blair's personal ratings are also suffering - 38 per cent now think he would make the best prime minister, down five per cent on April and 14 per cent on 2001.

Strategists believe Labour's splits over the euro are harming the party in the same way that divisions dented Tory popularity during the later years of John Major's premiership.

Labour officials point out that the party is, in historical terms, still in a remarkably strong mid-term position. Most governing parties languish well behind the Opposition in mid-term. To maintain the momentum, Mr Duncan Smith is planning a major speech - entitled New Europe: Old Europe - next month in which he will outline his thinking on Britain's relations with the EU and Europe's relationship with America.

One aide to Mr Duncan Smith said the party was finally getting its ideas across. He said: "It's one thing to have the policies, quite another to communicate them. We are beginning to do that."

[Skywalk]

One problem with government intervention in society is that it crowds out the alternatives. I collected unemployment for a short while(a couple months) because I was getting nothing from well over a hundred potential employers.

During the Depression, there were Mutual Aid Societies that helped people out in their difficult circumstances. I'd much rather there were private alternatives to these programs, but there often aren't. Unfortunately, that's what happens when the government intervenes.

[Skywalk]

Actually that Vanity Fair article has shown to be a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation.

WMD was the cause that everyone could agree on, but last time I saw the news during the pre-war standoff, there were a host of other issues continuously raised: links to terrorism, general threat to regional stability, oppressive regime that contributes to general terrorist "swamp."

So no, I don't think we can agree on that particular issue.

Rarely do nations go to war over just one issue, nor did Powell, Blair or Bush simply name one. They simply hammered away on one more when it came to the UN. It is the media that is hyping the WMD issue the most, because they have to latch on to SOMEthing.

[quebecois]

"..those whom you are attempting to pillory have distinguished track records of success which you would be hard-pressed to emulate, let alone surpass"

First of all, I am hardly alone in my questioning of the veracity of the stated reasons for this war. There are a heck of a lot of people around the world (a solid majority of the world's population) who question the stated reasons for the war. Its not just ME.

Secondly, you really don't know who I am or know anything about me. For all you know, I may well be as successful as either of these two (and for the record, I'm more successful up to this point in my life--mid 30s--than Bush was at a comparable age...and I started from significantly humbler origins).

Thirdly, as a taxpayer, I have a right to question my leaders. All thinking citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, since the history of the governance of mankind is so poor...we have a lot to be skeptical about.

[Imal]

Your points would be more compelling if your "questioning" actually included a single question.

You flat out accuse the "leadership" of the War in Iraq of "duplicity". That's not questioning anything, that's making a statement, as I so pithily pointed out.

I have no problem with you questioning whatever you like. Indeed, I consider it my duty as a citizen to question everything related to my government at least once.

But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

[Matchett-PI]

"Where is Saddam Hussein? We have been unable to find him. He, therefore, must never have existed."

You got it! LOL!!

[AlbionGirl]

I've collected unemployment too in the past, I wasn't trying to imply that there is anything necessarily wrong with that. Let's face it, part of your wages pay for it.

All I was trying to point out was that we as citizens are complicit in the degradation of our own government, because we put these people in office who will contravene political and social norms if it suits us. If government has intervened it has been because it found a willing populace.

Another thing that strikes me as fundamental, is that as citizens we've basically all agreed that there is a price to be paid for 'civilized' life. In other words, most people will gladly pool their resources, if it means allowing the government to house and monitor the indigent and other 'problemtic' parts of the population, and keep them from mucking up neighborhoods both financially and aesthetically.

Do you think that private charities could take care of the social problems in our country? I don't mean that to be a rhetorical question, it's an earnest one. I don't think they can, but maybe you know more about these things than I do, and I could be convinced otherwise.

[Matchett-PI]

"...but last time I saw the news during the pre-war standoff, there were a host of other issues continuously raised: links to terrorism, general threat to regional stability, oppressive regime that contributes to general terrorist "swamp." Rarely do nations go to war over just one issue, nor did Powell, Blair or Bush simply name one." ~ Skywalk

The Boob-bait for the bubbas spin:

"Wolfowitz says Saudi troop withdrawal was 'huge' reason for war with Iraq"

The *complete* Wolfowitz quote from the transcript:

Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --

Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --

Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --

Wolfowitz: -- "there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again."

[Skywalk]

Yes I do think private charities, individuals and institutions can handle the burden, with the possible exception of those in need of extremely expensive and constant medical care and supervision(as health care costs stand now, at least.)

I view it this way, before there was a welfare system this country was not immune to troubled economic times and individuals have always found themselves in dire straits. Yet, this nation has never(to my knowledge) suffered a devastating incident of mass starvation, even in the Depression. Why is that? Why not Great Leap Forward-like 20-30 million death toll?

Does this mean things would be perfect? No. WOuld there be some that slip through the cracks? Yes, but that occurs right now, despite the massive entitlement system in place. I also believe that the "need" for such charities would fade if people were held responsible for their circumstances. I know we had transients in the 1800s, but did we have THIS amount of homeless?

To be sure, the country is no longer centered around agricultural communities in the countryside, but with far greater wealth(assuming the tax burden is lowered) people would have the ability to pool their resources and have far greater local impacts than they currently do.

I think the transition should be gradual, but already privatized project housing has seen success, along with other similar programs. End it all, see overall wealth rise, see overall charitability rise and when government stops treating people as infants, responsibility will rise also.

[Matchett-PI]

"Where are they? A program which is that advanced and extensive can't be hidden THAT easily....we've had 6 weeks to comb the country .." ~ quebecois

INSIGHT mag - Powell's trip to Syria.

The May 3 meeting in the presidential palace on the hilltop overlooking Damascus was short and to the point.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, flanked by State Department Arabists, told Syrian dictator Bashar Assad that the U.S. victory in Iraq had changed the way America plans to do business in the Middle East.

The days of the cozy deals and of winking and nodding at Syrian support for terrorism were ended. He then presented Assad with a list of U.S. demands that was nothing short of breathtaking.

Powell told the Syrian president that the United States requires him to help in the search for hidden Iraqi weapons.

The United States believes the weapons were taken in convoys of tanker trucks to Syria last fall, along with key production equipment, and buried in the Syrian desert shortly before U.N. arms inspectors returned to Iraq.

Powell demanded that Syria locate and turn over Iraqi weapons scientists and top-ranking Ba'ath Party officials who had been granted sanctuary by Syria once Gulf War II began.

He also summoned Assad to close terrorist offices in Damascus and to shut down terrorist training camps in Lebanon.

Even more chilling for Assad: Powell informed him, and repeated this demand in public in Beirut, that the United States expected Syria to end its 27-year military occupation of Lebanon, where it continues to control all prime ministers and puppet presidents in utter defiance of the popular will.

For Syria's power elite Lebanon has been a cash cow, feeding luxurious lifestyles with an orgy of illicit drugs, counterfeit U.S. dollars and assorted contraband. Many observers believe that for Assad to abandon the occupation of Lebanon begun in 1976 would mean the end of Alaouite rule in Syria. And yet, that's what Powell was insisting he do. "The United States supports an independent and prosperous Lebanon, free of all - all - foreign forces," Powell said before the cameras in Beirut. This was the language Lebanese patriots have been asking the U.S. government to utter for years.

The only fig leaf left to disguise the hard ultimatum in Powell's presentation to Assad was his failure to use the words "or else." That was the one concession the State Department Arabists managed to convince him to adopt.

Just hours after Powell left Damascus, the Syrian leader phoned him in Beirut as he was about to walk into a meeting with Lebanon's Syrian-appointed president, Emile Lahoud. Assad told Powell that he had ordered close the offices of Palestinian and Lebanese terror groups headquartered in Damascus.

It looked like a victory, but Powell was circumspect. "They did some closures. I expect them to do more ... and I expect to hear back from them in the future," he told reporters.

Powell's diplomatic dance with the younger Assad, who succeeded his dictator father, Hafez, when the latter died in June 2000, was part of a careful U.S. effort to ratchet up the pressure on Syria that has been going on for several weeks. President George W. Bush had warned Syria on April 14 that the United States knew it was hiding Iraqi weapons and "we expect cooperation." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had accused Syria during the war of resupplying Iraqi forces with weapons, including night-vision goggles, and revealed that Syria had conducted chemical-weapons tests last year. Rumsfeld was alluding to an August 2002 test flight of an extended-range Scud missile equipped with a chemical warhead that Iraq had provided.

With 150,000 U.S. troops taking a breather after their victory in neighboring Iraq, Powell's series of demands was nothing less than a target list. His message was simple: We know where you are hiding the weapons, the scientists and the terrorist bases. Give them up, or we will go get them ourselves.

Powell heard back from the Syrian leader just a few days later. But Assad dared not reply directly this time. Instead, he chose as his messenger Newsweek senior correspondent Lally Weymouth, who had gone to Damascus to get Assad's reaction to the U.S. ultimatum.

"These are not offices, really," Assad said, referring to the Damascus headquarters of terrorist groups Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hezbollah. "They are houses where these groups do media activities, and I talked with Mr. Powell about stopping 'activities,' not closures." Using the cute double-talk for which his father was famous, he added: "No one in our area calls it terrorism. They are talking about freedom." As for the allegations that Syria was hiding Iraqi weapons, he just shrugged. "Why would Syria let them put these weapons in this country? There's no benefit for Syria."

On May 12, Powell returned to the region, where he delivered more straight talk. Speaking to an Israeli television interviewer, Powell acknowledged Assad's lies: "He did mislead me once before. If he chooses not to respond, if he chooses to dissemble, if he chooses to find excuses, then he will find that he is on the wrong side of history. He will find that he will not have better relations with the United States, and he can take his choice. Does he want to have good relations with the United States, or does he want to have good relations with Hamas? His choice."

Powell's blunt words were just the leading edge of what one senior administration official described as "seething anger" over the behavior of the young Syrian dictator. "At one point toward the end of the conflict, the Syrians thought we were coming," the official said. While Powell made clear that was not then the case, administration officials point to the sobering presence of 150,000 U.S. troops just across the border in Iraq as an inducement to get Assad to change his ways.

But if he does not, the United States has a well-developed target list. It begins with the obvious: the terrorist training camps in Lebanon's Bekáa Valley run by radical Palestinian groups, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. Some of these camps have been used to stage cross-border attacks into Israel. Others have been used as halfway houses for terrorists on the run from their former bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. Located in farmhouses surrounded by lush hashish fields, most will make easy targets for U.S. warplanes based in western Iraq or flying off U.S. aircraft carriers.

Next come the terrorist offices in Damascus itself. U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials say these offices are not just media centers but operations bases used to funnel funds and weapons to terrorists on the ground inside Israel and elsewhere. Iranian-backed terrorists are believed to have used Syria as a staging area for the attack on the Khobar barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in 1996 in which 19 U.S. servicemen were killed. On quiet days, terror "spokesmen" creep out from under the rocks to deliver soliloquies to the press. But when they come under scrutiny for their involvement in terrorist operations, spokesmen of Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah regularly go to ground, as this reporter found during a trip to Damascus in the 1990s.

Syria's network of weapons plants and dual-use chemical, pharmaceutical and industrial facilities provides another series of targets for U.S. war planners, should they choose to use force against Assad.

Neither the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency nor the Pentagon would agree to Insight's requests to provide a background briefing on Syrian special-weapons capabilities - on the grounds that the subject was "too sensitive." However, the CIA regularly has acknowledged Syrian efforts to develop and deploy an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in biannual reports to Congress.

In its most recent Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, the CIA noted that Syria "already held a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, but apparently is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents." In addition, the report stated, "it is highly probable that Syria also is continuing to develop an offensive BW [biological-weapons] capability." Since 1997, the CIA has reported publicly on Syria's efforts to acquire solid-fuel missiles and production facilities from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

A more voluminous Pentagon report, Proliferation: Threat and Response, states that Syria has "several hundred Scud-B, Scud-C and SS-21 SRBMs [short-range ballistic missiles]. Syria is believed to have chemical warheads available for a portion of its Scud missile force." The report also notes that Syria has received "considerable North Korean help in producing Scud-Cs," missiles that allow Syria to reach all of Israel and most of Turkey.

Behind the dry language, however, lies a vast network of weapons plants, missile bases and extensive relationships with foreign technology suppliers, not just in North Korea and China, but also in France and in Germany. In fact, it was the French who helped Syria build its scientific establishment, under a 1969 agreement with the French state-run Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique. Even today, the Syrian Scientific Research Center more commonly is known by its French acronym, CERS (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Scientifiques), and has maintained its government-to-government relationship with France and French state-owned weapons companies.

Intelligence analysts in the United States, Israel and Western Europe agree that CERS is the lead agency in Syria that handles research and development of both conventional and unconventional weapons. So critical is the role of CERS in the procurement of technology and materials for Syria's special-weapons programs that the U.S. and German governments have blacklisted it as a warning to exporters who might otherwise seek its business. CERS is funded and reports directly to the Office of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic. During the 1980s and 1990s, it focused extensively on military research involving radar, missile-telemetry systems, telecommunications, plastics, high-performance lubricants and artificial intelligence, with teams of buyers scouring Europe for dual-use technologies likely to further chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs.

Today, CERS is in charge of procurement for Syria's strategic-weapons programs. In 1999, it purchased 10 tons of powdered aluminum from Communist China for use as a solid-fuel propellant, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

In February 2001, the French Atomic Energy Agency sent a team of physicists to explore nuclear-cooperation projects at Syria's four state universities and at CERS subsidiary ISSAT, known in English as the Higher Institute for Applied Science and Technology. It was set up with assistance from the French Embassy in Damascus in 1983 to facilitate French technical assistance to Syria.

Syrian chemical-weapons plants have been operating for nearly 20 years, and were first mentioned publicly in the United States by then-director of the CIA, William Webster, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on Feb. 9, 1989. "Syria began producing chemical-warfare agents and munitions in the mid-1980s, and currently has a chemical-warfare-production facility," Webster said.

In 1991, Israeli chief of staff Ehud Barak (who later became prime minister) told an audience of leading industrialists in Tel Aviv that Syria's chemical-weapons capability was "larger than Iraq's." Over the years, chemical-weapons plants were identified just north of Damascus, outside of Homs and near Hama, where Syria was believed to be producing VX agents in addition to sarin and tabun. A fourth production facility near Cerin was believed to be manufacturing biological-warfare agents.

Industrial facilities that could be potential targets include a pharmaceuticals plant in Aleppo, a large urea and ammonia plant in Homs, and a superphosphates complex in the desert near Palmyra, where Iraqi technicians reportedly have transferred technology Iraq used with success to extract uranium from raw phosphates ore. Another dozen government-run pharmaceuticals plants are spread across the country, some of which were built by major French, Swiss and German firms and could be used to produce biological-warfare agents.

Last year, the Israeli daily Yediot Aharanot identified a major chemical-weapons plant and Scud-C missile base in northern Syria, near the village of As-Safirah, and published satellite photographs of the site that it had commissioned.

The photographs show an extensive industrial complex, several munitions-storage depots, a missile-silo complex and a separate command-and-control site with a large phased-array radar. The complex is protected by SAM-2 surface-to-air missiles. Three tunnel entrances protected by box-canyon walls give access to buried parts of the site.

The As-Safirah complex, just west of Aleppo near Syria's Mediterranean coast, was built as part of a $500 million deal with North Korea signed in Damascus on March 29, 1990, by North Korean Vice President Yi Chong-Ok.

Bill Gertz, of Insight's sister daily, the Washington Times, first reported on the delivery of Scud-C kits from North Korea to Syria in March 1991. Today, the Israelis believe Syria has assembled several hundred Scud-Cs and is developing "multiple-warhead" clusters in an effort to defeat Israel's Arrow antitactical ballistic-missile system, according to defense analyst Anthony H. Cordesman.

The United States repeatedly has imposed sanctions on Chinese and North Korean state-owned companies for selling Syria missile kits, production technology, guidance kits and solid-fuel components. But U.S. officials acknowledge that the sanctions, which bar those companies from competing for U.S. government contracts, essentially are meaningless.

"We need to take a new look at the proliferation problem," one administration official tells Insight. "We need to start thinking about active intervention, new tools and tactics, and methods of preventing the actual shipment of weapons and weapons technology."

[BlackVeil]

misled by the Iraqi opposition groups. I stated a number of times prior the war that these were the people least credible in their claims about the Baathist regime and Iraqi sentiments. They had a vested interest ...

Insightful. They were getting foreign aid funding, too, which promotes corruption and self-serving behaviour. I have noticed that some CIA types are now putting out articles about how they knew these claims were all nonsense, and they knew better, and it was only the State Dept etc. etc.

[Matchett-PI]

"I am currently giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. ..Either way, the WMD argument was bogus." ~ quebecois

No kidding?

Feb. 17, 1998

Transcript of Bill "Kick the Can on Down the Road" Clinton's address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff on Iraq:

"Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks and your leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job you have done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent very difficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the right person at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs, General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being here and Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years of service to America and your passionate patriotism both of you. And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here to protect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our military leadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. Before I left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom you represent the men and women of our military. You, your friends and your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directly from me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what we are doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom we cherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the slogan that the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium, which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star Spangled Banner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitment to medical research and to get the best of the new technology. But that's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, more difficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment.

We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm.

Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment.

Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War.

When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan.

He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks.

Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM.

They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door.

And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job.

Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard.

If he accepts them, force will not be necessary.

If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promised to do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedly refused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors have done against all odds.

We have no business agreeing to any resolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access to the remaining sites by people who have integrity and proven confidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard. That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fighting for it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist upon it.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.

And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in the Gulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations.

Our force posture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmark and the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends and neighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action, but because there are people in this world who believe the United Nations resolutions should mean something, because they understand what UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, and because they can imagine what the future will be depending on what we do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.

We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity.

But it can and will leave him significantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues to have a will to act if and when he threatens again.

Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all the means at our disposal.

If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddam complies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110 billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today, how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would have hidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a small fraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southern suburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq, making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again or threaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know the weightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send our troops into harm's way.

And force can never be the first answer. But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fighting force in the world. And should it prove necessary for me to exercise the option of force, your commanders will do everything they can to protect the safety of all the men and women under their command.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We have seen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constant vigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every time Saddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, we struck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troops in Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployed our troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, we broadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-fly zone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.

Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission.

He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now.

One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st.

In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community does have the wisdom and the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era.

That is the future I ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies to imagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together.

And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

[Jorge]

Interesting. The articles I read seemed to imply that Blair's poll numbers had dropped in the area of "trust" due to the WMD issue.
Liberals over here are sure exploiting this issue in an attempt to chip away a Bush's high poll numbers when it comes to "trust". But I don't think it's working.

[BullDog108]

The Great Bullshitter Farts Again

sigh..............

[Fraulein]

I'll believe that Bush is serious about the War on Terrorism as soon as he does something about our open, porous borders.

War on Terrorism:

Patriot Act, check.
War against Iraq, check
Secure the borders, nope

Explain it to me, folks!

[Fraulein]

Nothing at all was done about the border problem post 9/11. So why should we expect anything to be done about it now?

[StopGlobalWhining]

...the "noble lie" theory of leadership (ie: the elite must tell necessary lies to the masses to achieve desirable goals)

And this is exactly what the elites who are trying to shake down America by promoting the ludicrous Global Warming Hoax are doing. Two examples of prominent elitists being less than honest in their campaign to decieve the gullible and scientifically diseducated masses:

First, climatologist Steven Schneider from Stanford and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. ? Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

From an interview with Schneider in the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine

Second, former Colorado Senator and Deputy Undersecretary of State Tim Wirth, who presently heads Ted Turners billion dollar fund to reduce world population:

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue," said Sen. Timothy E. Wirth, D-Colo., the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's point man on that issue and chairman of the Alliance to Save Energy. "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

As reported in

REPORTS - Less Burning, No Tears

By ROCHELLE L. STANFIELD, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Saturday, Aug. 13, 1988

[quebecois]

"You flat out accuse the leadership of the war in Iraq with duplicity"

First of all, as I've said on numerous occasions, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I think that he was probably manipulated by those around him who fed him slanted information.

But the major reasons that were given for the war simply don't add up. Even if some WMD are found (a dubious assertion at this point), Iraq was supposed to be awash in tons of chemicals and biotoxins. Nothing has been found anywhere. If Bush really was misled, shouldn't some heads be rolling? Its bad enough that our intel people were totally blindsided by 9/11 (an horrific failure on the part of our intelligence community for which no one has been really held responsible, to my knowledge), now they appear to have blown one of the most critical missions since 9/11.

And what about the Osama connection? Other than a flimsy story about Iraqi intelligence in Prague, there really hasn't been much in the way of proof that Saddam's govt was involved with the muslim terrorists.

Meanwhile, our soldiers are stuck as occupiers in an increasingly hostile Iraq....getting picked off at a rate of a couple a week.

I'm sorry if my questioning offends you, but there are plenty things to criticize here.

There are several nations in the middle east that have many more of osama's terrorists than Iraq (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for starters). And several also have WMD programs (Pakistan and Syria). So...why Iraq? The fact that the stated reasons for the invasion don't add up fans the suspicion that some people in power had ulterior motives.

[Imal]

I'm sorry if my questioning offends you, but there are plenty things to criticize here.

No, I'm not offended at all by actual questioning, so no worries there. However, I do take offense to the idea that your statements somehow constitute questions, in apparent defiance of the rules of the English language.

I refer you specifically to your Post #2, and challenge you to point out so much as a single question in your post. You know, the post I originally responded to. Don't waste your time doing a search for a question mark there, because there are none.

Believe me, I am no enemy of a questioning mind. But I am not going to buy your argument that your statements of "facts" somehow transcend the laws of logic and assume the status of questions. You can repeat that false notion until you're blue in the face, but you aren't going to convince me of something that is patently untrue.

This is about as clear I can get without breaking out the finger puppets for you.

Your opinions are not questions, they are statements, and your statements have no more weight of truth that any other opinion expressed here. Why do you insist on vainly trying to convince me otherwise?

[Bonaparte]

There will come a day when you will eat your words in post 2. And I'll be there to spoon feed them to you.

Bookmarked.

[Bonaparte]

Nice to hear you concede that your "inescapable conclusion" might be escapable. Wish I'd known about this phenomenon of the escapable inescapable conclusion back when I was searching for new ways to tease my sister during Easter Egg hunts.