Replies

"Don't forget the 30 mustard gas shells and teh Sarin binary chemical artillery shell that was rigged as an IED and promptly ignored by the main stream media."

I know what you're saying. I can't believe that Bush has taken the position he has. He should have never said there were no WMD there. What happened to the ones he had? There was never any proof he got rid of them. There is all kinds of evidence they were transported out of the country.

Then they were even used against us. He's criticized for not "connecting the dots" on 911 - then criticized for going into Iraq.

I don't know who is advising Bush - but he certainly could do a lot better.

I've heard that there is a problem at the UN level- Iraq is under sanctions and for a while there the UN was still holding sanctions over Iraq even though we overthrew their government. Because the US is also a party to a UN WMD proliferation treaty we have to step carefully in order to avoid undermining our efforts in Iraq.

The UN is apparently still holding sanctions and restrictions over Iraq's head, thanks to certain members who don't want the Op Iraqi Freedom to succeed. I suppose they are using the excuse that the Iraqis still haven't had a national election and the UN still hasn't finished its search of Iraq and so, the UN does not have to certify that Iraq has complied with the UN demands and release it from its obligations.

It's sad, but the UN is better at enforcing UN oil for food regulations AFTER the fall of Hussein than they were while he was in power. They have more motivation this time around since the US Coalition's invasion of Iraq has cut of their access to their Iraqi cash cow.

Nevermind that in 1998 certain members of the UN were pressuring to have the sanctions lifted even though Hussein was still in place and had not met the UN's demands. It didn't matter then, but now the UN demands full accountability with the new Iraqi government. Certain members of the UN are playing a game of chicken with Bush. Bush knows the UN will take any excuse to insert themselves into governing Iraq's affairs- and a find of WMD would do just that by treaty. The UN on the other hand, wants Bush to lose the election, for his election is necessary in order to continue Iraq's progress towards democracy. They know Bush would like very much to show the world what has been found because it would help him in the election.

If we do "find WMD" in Iraq then by previous agreements we have to let the UN go in and certify Iraqi compliance with the nonproliferation treaties and rules. The UN can then delay Iraq's recognition indefinitely, and cripple Iraq's relations with other nations, its trade, etc, and effectively run Iraq. We all know how profitable the old crippled Iraq was to certain countries and interests- it's no wonder some want that UN 'oversight' to continue.

Also, while we could ignore the UN at will and back out of the treaty in question, for the sake of Iraq we must maintain the coalition and this means we have to go through the motions at the UN level because some nations are reluctant to defy the UN.

So Bush does what is good for Iraq even though it puts his presidency at risk. We cannot "find" Iraqi WMD until after Iraq has been freed of the UN's oversight- and maybe not even then. That's why the sarin gas shell was downplayed, and everything else was kept low-key. We have released enough info on Iraq's missile programs and drones to confirm that Iraq grossly violated the UN resolutions but not enough on WMD to give the opposition in the UN something big to 'legally' undermine the new Iraqi government or to keep it isolated.