Regards, Ivan
Posted on 02/05/2003 4:21:46 PM PST by MadIvan
Colin Powell's presentation yesterday to the United Nations on Iraqi defiance of the Security Council was an extraordinary event.
First, in a public, televised session, the American Secretary of State produced both recorded and photographic intelligence of deception; this sort of secret information, which could endanger the agents who collected it, is normally revealed, if it comes to light at all, in camera. Second, the fact that the case against Saddam Hussein was being made by the leading dove in the Bush Administration was a powerful reminder that Baghdad has been given ample time to demonstrate compliance with the UN.
Mr Powell rightly reminded his audience that responsibility for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction lay primarily with Baghdad. The most persuasive part of his presentation were the recordings of Republican Guard officers, giving orders that incriminating evidence be removed before the inspectors arrived. Anyone with any knowledge of the importance that Saddam attaches to weapons of mass destruction will not be surprised by these evasions; they were a familiar feature of UN attempts to disarm him in the 1990s.
But the recordings should help convince countries such as France and Germany that to give Baghdad more time to come clean is merely to encourage further subterfuge. UN resolutions, even when backed by the threat of force, have not persuaded Iraq to meet its obligations. In Soviet style, the entire regime is geared to serving Saddam and preserving what he considers to be his trump card.
Last month, Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, submitted telling evidence to the Security Council about Iraq's refusal to permit U-2 surveillance flights and to allow Iraqi scientists to be interviewed alone. Yesterday, Mr Powell corroborated their reports: a committee under the vice-president had been set up to monitor the inspectors; Saddam had warned scientists that divulging information or agreeing to go abroad to be interviewed would be treated as treason.
On biological and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, Mr Powell confirmed much of what Mr Blix had said on January 27. On Iraq's nuclear programme, he sounded a more sombre note than Mr ElBaradei: the purchase of high-specification aluminium tubes and the attempts to acquire magnets were signs that Iraq was seeking to enrich uranium.
The Secretary of State also traced Iraq's connections with Islamic terrorist groups, from Hamas to affiliates of al-Qa'eda based in Baghdad. But the thrust of his lengthy, detailed and impressive presentation was to remind the United Nations that failure to confront Iraqi defiance of its resolutions would condemn it to irrelevance.
Mr Blix will report again to the Security Council tomorrow week. It will then have to decide whether to face up to its responsibilities. If it does not, America and its allies will go to war without its blessing. The risk, post-September 11, of leaving Saddam in possession of deadly weapons is not one that they are prepared to run.
Regards, Ivan
It would appear the Times thinks so too.
"Mr Blix will report again to the Security Council tomorrow week. It will then have to decide whether to face up to its responsibilities. If it does not, America and its allies will go to war without its blessing. The risk, post-September 11, of leaving Saddam in possession of deadly weapons is not one that they are prepared to run." What is a disgrace is that some American or British soldier may have to pay with his life for the delay. Or civilians for that matter. It's coming, we must prepare.
I don't think there's been any delay. They certainly are not slowing down our preparations.
From the start, President Bush has never indicated that UN approval was necessary, only that they needed to decide whether they would enforce their own resolutions.
When Bush is ready, he will pull the trigger.
Cheers Ivan.
They can then commiserate in their mutual irrelevance.
A man this unrealistic has no place leading the U.N., no matter how worthless, discredited and illegitimate it has become. As its prime benefactor, we should insist on a leader who at least has credibility. Let's review: we had a war to stop unprovoked aggression; it ended with a resolution binding on Iraq and member states; the resolution was flagrantly and repeatedly violated by Iraq; the leader of the USA, not the leader of the UN, insisted that the UN and the member states enforce the resolution; instead, these violations led to another resolution; this resolution was flagrantly and repeatedly violated; this led the UN to request security sources-compromising evidence of violations of which it was already aware; undeniable proof was presented; and we get this bullsh"t from Annan.
Time to devise a new world collective. This one is a joke.
| I dare say we are going to have to do this without the UN.
At some point, and it is soon, Kofi Annan's interests begin to diverge from those of France, Germany, et. al., as he begins to see that their domestic politics is not a reason for him to lose his cushy job as Head Of The World. He either maneuvers a second "use of force" resolution through the Security Council, or his whole show becomes a laughingstock when "The UN Security Council" is seen pouting on the dias while the Serious Players go on without them. I think Kofi Annan is a peacenik and a weenie and an anti-US weasel, but before he is any of those things, he is a bureaucrat. And the first rule of being a bureaucrat is self-preservation. |
I'm half hoping the French DO veto it in the Security Council. The irrelevant making an irrelevant statement in an irrelevant arena. There's a certain symmetry there.
Tammy, you want FUN!? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
Head on over to DU and read their discussion thread on Powell's presentation. Now I NEVER go over there, but my curiosity go the better of me today and I followed along.
The subtle shift of the tenor of their comments is fun to see. It starts out with them sneering and smarmy, bitching about Powell's lies, eventually it ends up with posts like, "so what if they do have this stuff, are we going to attack every country that does?".
On the whole, very enjoyable if you have a strong stomach.
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.
I wouldn't put money on it, but I don't think that's going to happen. The UN is too rich a gravy train for Kofi Annan and his striped-pants bureaucrats to lose... and they will lose it if the US and the UK go ahead without them.