Report: Iraq Asked Finland About Anthrax

guardian ^ | 2/15/03

[The Great Satan]

A test? Accountability? Performance-based evaluation? "Mais, c'est insupportable! C'est le simplisme! Oo-la-la!"

[Mitchell]

The main technical problem with the creation of this new organization is to avoid having its potential supporters view it as a mere shill for the U.S. Perhaps the proposal needs to come from elsewhere. Some country like the Czech Republic would seem to me to be a possibility. Or maybe it needs to be a group of countries to give the proposal the necessary weight.

[The Great Satan]

Now you're thinking strategically. Excellent! I'm pretty confident Dubya won't just announce that now we're taking our marbles home from the UN and everybody who wants to join our gang can just tag along. No, it will be presented as a fait accompli (pardon my French). And will we actually pull out of the UN, or cut our funding, or will we cancel their lease? -- all interesting questions.

[Allan]

But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time.

To do what?

[Allan]

Pres. Bush virtually spelled everything out.

Since you like to believe Bush spells out everything precisely,
I'd like you to explain this statement:

"The game is over"

What game? When did it end? What was the score?

I must have been watching the wrong game on the wrong channel.

[The Great Satan]

To do what?

Uh, little stuff like pepper the entire country, and eventually the world, with anthrax detectors, or make enough vaccine to protect everyone in the US and its allies. What is your personal estimate of how long that would take? You have given this a lot of thought, I take it?

[Allan]

What is your personal estimate of how long that would take?

About 50 years. Saddam might not be around by then. We might not be either.

[Mitchell]

Since you like to believe Bush spells out everything precisely, I'd like you to explain this statement:
"The game is over"
What game? When did it end? What was the score?
I must have been watching the wrong game on the wrong channel.

Well, I'm not so naive as to believe that Bush really spells everything out. "The first casualty of war..." and all that. However, I do think that his statements mean something.

As for his statement that "the game is over," look at it in context. Here's the Voice of America article on it, from Feb. 6, 2003 (my emphases in boldface):

President Bush wants a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it does not cooperate with inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.

President Bush says the "game is over," that it is time for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because he is violating U.N. resolutions demanding that he disarm.

"Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing that chance away. The dictator of Iraq is making his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own," he said.

Mr. Bush says it is a moment of truth for the United Nations which he says must renew its purpose as a source of stability and demonstrate that it is prepared to meet future challenges to its authority.

"Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dicator," he said.

The president called for a second resolution restating U.N. demands, but said that resolution will have little meaning without the will to act.

I think the game that is about to be over is the U.N.'s game. Saddam's game won't be over for a while yet, unfortunately.

[The Great Satan]

[Mitchell]

Uh, little stuff like pepper the entire country, and eventually the world, with anthrax detectors, or make enough vaccine to protect everyone in the US and its allies.

The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.

It's just like the worry that construction of an ABM system by Country A would encourage a first strike against Country A before the system is completed, since it's Country B's last chance (and since B would worry that once the system is completed, A could stage a first strike with impunity).

It is very difficult to see a solution to this interim problem.

[The Great Satan]

The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.

And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that. That's just a fixed, operational constraint, the real-world consequence of Clinton's fecklessness and Annan's duplicity. We can attack now and face the near-certainty of a massive retaliation against which we have no defense, or we can string things out until we have some way to blunt the threat. Guess which option we're going to take.

[riri]

OBL needed killing. The Taliban needed killing. The UN needs killing. And that's what's coming down. Woo-hooo!

I hate to bolster your ego but man, your good!

[Mitchell]

[The problem that this brings up is that Iraq (or anybody else with anthrax) will have a strong incentive to use it before their WMD is essentially neutralized. There's a very unstable period while the civil defenses are being developed and installed.]

And guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about that.

Yep, that's the way it is. So we shouldn't be surprised at further covert attacks, presumably by proxy for Iraq, designed to be very damaging but still below the level that would provoke a strategic response. After all, Iraq would figure that there's nothing we can do about it that isn't in the works anyway, plus they have a strong incentive to use their bioweapons before our civil defense is in place.

[BOBTHENAILER]

They all had to go. And, one by one, they're being picked off. Before each one is taken out, we go through an exercise in which their true nature is very publicly exposed.

Great job GS and thanks for ping GD. Your summary goes well with my tagline, which I ain't changin' till we obliterate Iraq.

[The Great Satan]

I hate to bolster your ego but man, your good!

No one is more humble than Satan. Absolutely no one.

[ConservativeLawyer]

But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time, and legitimates the hammer, once it comes down.

Perhaps this is why we are going back to the UN for yet ANOTHER exasperating resolution that seems to mirror all the rest. Keep feeding rope to the UN while we prepare ourselves for what lies ahead.

I'm beginning to think that "severe consequences" in UN speak means: "we'll pass yet another resolution if you don't comply with the first."

[ConservativeLawyer]

And, one by one, they're being picked off. Before each one is taken out, we go through an exercise in which their true nature is very publicly exposed.

Sort of like President Bush has been doing to the Democrats. He certainly knows how to do this.

[The Great Satan]

The weasels are crowing over "Colin Powell's bad day" at the UN, and over de Vichypin's smug, self-satisfied smirk. The weasels ought to be smart enough to understand that Colin Powell doesn't have bad days. The weasels ought to remember the Dems' glee over Trent Lott's case of foot-in-mouth. But, if they were smart, they wouldn't be in the weasel club, would they?

[Mitchell]

... eerily reminiscent of the Arafat gambit

How do you interpret what has happened with Arafat?

[Allan]

How do you interpret what has happened with Arafat?

Arafat is being eased out so that Hamas can take over.