Three things...

Three things we haven't much about from the main stream press:
-------------------------------------------------------------

[excerpt] "If you are one of the many good and decent people thinking of going on the anti-war march today, I beg you to reconsider. Not for the sake of the British Government; not because of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction; nor for any of the other ridiculous reasons that have been given in the past few months. No. The only moral factor in this war should be the Iraqi people, and their needs – and the Iraqi people's greatest need is for our help to get rid of one of the worst dictators on earth.

Don't take my word for it. You don't even have to go to Iraq, as I did last year, and see the desperate look on people's faces as they tell you – in the barest of euphemisms – that they "love British and American democracy", and ask you, "When will you come to free us? When will we be able to live again?" There is no need to endure the pain of this: the evidence of what the Iraqi people want and need is there in the public domain for anybody who cares to find it.

Approach people in the Iraqi exile community (the five million who have fled Saddam's fascist state), and ask them what their relatives in Iraq are telling them. (If you do go on the march, please note the marked absence of Iraqi exiles). Or better still read the report Voices From the Iraqi Street by the International Crisis Group, a rigorously independent think-tank. They sent researchers into Iraq to compile an extensive survey of Iraqi public opinion. It is the closest we have to a Mori poll of that wretched, oppressed nation."

[two excerpts]
"Attitudes toward a U.S. strike are complex. There is some concern about the potential for violence, anarchy and score settling that might accompany forceful regime change. But the overwhelming sentiment among those interviewed was one of frustration and impatience with the status quo. Perhaps most widespread is a desire to return to "normalcy" and put an end to the abnormal domestic and international situation they have been living through. A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it."

"What ICG's field findings do say, rather, and in stark terms, is that a wide gulf separates the attitude of Iraqis from that of much of the rest of the world. For the international community, the principal question today is whether war should or should not be waged. For the Iraqi people, who since 1980 have lived through a devastating conflict with Iran, Desert Storm, a decade of sanctions, international isolation and periodic U.S./UK aerial attacks, a state of war has existed for two decades already. The question is not whether a war will take place. It is whether a state of war finally will be ended."
-------------------------------------------------------------

#2 - We keep hearing journalists talk about finding Iraq in material breach and finding further material breach and finding "smoking gun" evidence that the inspectors are looking for.

UN Security Council resolution 1441 does not require "further material breach". Paragraph number one of SCR 1441 "DECIDES that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations". The only other place where 1441 even uses the word "breach" is in paragraph four where it warns that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations". Since Hans Blix has acknowledged that the Iraqi disclosure in December did not present any new materials, they were immediately in "further material breach" at that time.

SCR 1441 declared that Iraq HAS BEEN in material breach for the past twelve years. The resolution does not call for the inspectors to find any evidence of weapons at all. It calls for Iraq to present evidence of their destruction and allow the inspectors unimpeded access to verify that.

SOURCES: UNSCR 1441 (doh)
-------------------------------------------------------------

#3 - An interesting pattern of Iraqi lies about their biological weapons program.

1991/August - Iraq says they conducted research activities for defensive purposes.

1992/May - Iraq admits to a biological weapons program, but claims it was only defensive.

1995/July - Iraq admits to an offensive biological weapons program, but denies weaponization.

1995/August - Iraq admits to a far more extensive biological weapons program than previously, including weaponization, but also claims that all such weapons and related items were destroyed in 1991.

If they destroyed everything in 1991, then why.... did they spend millions of dollars over four years delaying and obstructing the inspectors and creating a vast deception that there was no program?

SOURCES:
UNSCOM timeline from http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm
S/1998/308 8 April 1998 letter from Richard Butler, then head of UNSCOM to the Security Council
[excerpt]
"4.10.4 Iraq claims that the BW programme was obliterated in 1991 as demonstrated by the unilateral destruction of the weapons deployed, bulk agent and some documents associated with the BW programme. Iraq, however, retained the facilities, growth media, equipment and groupings of core technical personnel at Al Hakam, and continued to deny the BW programme's existence. In spite of Iraq's continued denial of the preservation of its BW programme, the Government of Iraq has yet to offer documentation of its formal renunciation. The head of the Iraqi delegation took the position that he could offer no defence to justify the concealment and deception prior to 1995. These positions and acts raise serious doubts about Iraq's assertion that the BW programme was truly obliterated in 1991."

Good job, tentmaker. You can be sure the prestitutes have all this information, but it doesn't fit their agenda, therefore it does not exist.

3 posted on 02/21/2003 4:08:47 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)

And to whom is this directed, since we here at FR have been aware of these facts for quite some time? The lieberal democrat Axis of Acorns won't acknowledge any of these truths, the U.N refuses to align these facts in this manner because it will prove time for severe consequences, and Saddam certainly could not care less.

4 posted on 02/21/2003 4:08:53 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

7 posted on 02/21/2003 4:26:25 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.