Report: Iraq Asked Finland About Anthrax

guardian ^ | 2/15/03

[knak]

HELSINKI, Finland (AP) - The Iraqi Embassy in Helsinki sought information about anthrax from the foreign ministry in October, Finnish media reported Saturday.

The query - reportedly lodged about a month before the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Baghdad - sought suitable methods ``for the early detection of anthrax,'' the Ilta-Sanomat newspaper reported.

The request also concerned ``ways of protecting against anthrax, as well as methods, procedures and equipment needed for decontamination,'' the tabloid said.

Ilta-Sanomat said that the head of the foreign ministry's political division, Markus Lyra, confirmed the report.

``We did not answer it (the request) at all, and there have been no further discussions,'' Lyra was quoted as saying. ``It is not our field.''

``One wonders, whether it was intended simply for propaganda or similar purposes,'' he added.

Foreign ministry officials were unavailable for comment Saturday.

[The Great Satan]

Bush has already promised, if the UN does not act, he will lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. The great thing about Bush is, if you listen very carefuly to what he says, he always gives people a heads up as to what's going down. Bush is going to make good on that promise. Note, BTW, that he never committed to attack Iraq in a matter of weeks -- he simply said that the UN must act in a matter of weeks. So, now we find out what "leading a coalition" implies. And, my prediction is, it's going to imply the complete humiliation of the UN -- no more "sanction of the victim," to use Ayn Rand's term -- followed by the careful, systematic assembly of a new world body that will do the job the UN was supposed do. We're going to put together a by-invitation-only, self-perpetuating fraternity of freedom-oriented nations. The "fraternity" aspect is a wonderful piece of poetic justice, given the scorn heaped on Dubya for his "frat boy" mentality. Francois de Villepin, or WTF that frog pillowbiter's name is, will have the smile wiped of his silly, smug face when he finds himself out in the cold with a bunch of freaks and whack-jobs -- a veritable "Trenchcoat Mafia" of outcast, loser nations. Gerhard Schroeder will have to take up a new occupation, like searching for his approval ratings with a microscope. Kofi Annan, who bears more responsibility for 9-11 than any human being outside Iraq, will have to get used to paying his parking tickets like a normal human being. This humiliation is very necessary. All of this will be enormously popular with the American people. All of this was foreshadowed in the administration's Arafat strategy. Bush has given ample warning to all the offending parties. The verdict of history will be decisively in favor of Bush's New World Order, and the likes of Annan, Schroeder, de Villiepan, Chirac, etc., will be remembered in the same breath as Chamberlain, Quisling, Lord Haw-Haw, Benedict Arnold, Kurt Waldheim, and Marshal Petain.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm coming and I think I'll have to go change my underwear.

[The Great Satan]

What do you think Bush's approval ratings will be the day after the announcement?

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw the United Nations forever. We begin evictions in five minutes."

[Mitchell]

What do you think Bush's approval ratings will be the day after the announcement?

Way up, no question about it.

The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N.

If the socialist claptrap promoted by a sovereignty-usurping U.N. can be replaced by a loose federation of free countries, it would be a fitting start for the new millennium. This organization would, by its nature, be libertarian-leaning, just as the U.N. is socialist/authoritarian-leaning. The repercussions on domestic politics in the member countries would be positive as well, because of a mutually reinforcing effect.

The U.N. could move its headquarters to Beijing or Damascus or some such place. The lines would be clearly drawn between freedom and slavery, between liberty and tyranny.

Well, I guess I've gone on about this long enough, but I really like the idea.

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw the United Nations forever. We begin evictions in five minutes."

LOL! He'd be more diplomatic than that. I haven't really given this idea any thought though -- how would you get there from here?

[The Great Satan]

I haven't really given this idea any thought though -- how would you get there from here?

I don't think it would be that difficult. Bush is a businessman. He thinks like a businessman. That's his genius -- his characteristically American genius. If one of your investments isn't making a profit, you cut your losses and get out. When the Enronites came to him begging for a bail-out, he just told them to get lost. There's nothing so important that the UN does, even in purely PR terms, that could not be nixed or grandfathered into a new and better organization. I think that, unlike the Enronites, the UNites probably don't understand how precarious their position is -- they are totally divorced from the world of accountability, not merely on vacation from it. And, boy, would I like to see the looks on their faces when the axe goes down.

The only problem I see with this idea is, how come I didn't think of it before? Oh, well. Even the Great Satan can't think of everything.

[The Great Satan]

The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N.

Very important point.

[The Great Satan]

It might be useful if, after the announcement of the new Liberty Alliance, Vladimir Putin went into a "Should I stay or should I go?" routine for, say, 12-18 months.

[Mitchell]

[The key that makes this work is that it wouldn't just be scrapping the U.N., it would be replacing it with a different international organization, one with a solid political foundation based on the principle of freedom of the individual, unlike the U.N. ]

Very important point.

Most people I know are basically internationalists these days. As such, they support the U.N., because the alternative would seem to be isolationism and xenophobia. But even these strong U.N. supporters cannot abide the respect given to the likes of Arafat, Mugabe, etc. And these aren't isolated cases; supporting such people has become the bedrock on which the U.N.'s foundation is built.

The U.N. has lost the respect of the American public, but people see no alternative, since isolationism is unacceptable. Once there's a realistic alternative out there, the U.N. will be over.

[patriciaruth]

From Stefan Stackhouse on another thread: "The price, of course, is that the rupture between the US & UK on the one hand and France, Germany, and Belgium on the other, will become total and permanent. NATO will not survive, neither will the UN, and the EU may split in two. It is not inconceivable that France and Germany might even break diplomatic relations with us.
"This all might not be seen as actually being much of a downside. The point is, of course, that the old order has come to a close, the world is in the midst of one of those times of profound change, and the world that follows for the next decade or more will look very much different from the one we have become accustomed to for the past decade.
"Your thoughts?"

As I said on another thread, "History is sweeping away the cobwebs of the past."

I agree with both of you that this is a huge watershed in history. Countries are having to take stock in a way they haven't had to do for over half a century.

[Mitchell]

If one of your investments isn't making a profit, you cut your losses and get out.

Especially when you see an excellent investment elsewhere.

You're right about the precariousness of the U.N.'s position. The U.N. has no moral authority, no political authority, no military authority. It's a facade.

In fact, it's a faded, fraying facade that could fall over with the next gust of wind that comes along -- or with just the slightest push by somebody who doesn't want to wait for that gust of wind.

[patriciaruth]

Great Powers do not take risks like this without being willing to act. We are willing to act, and we will.

The Great Satan and I have a bet (loser to donate $50 to Free Republic). I say Bush attacks Iraq within three weeks, but TGS has given me till April for the balloon to go up.

My reasons are identical to yours. However, unlike others, I agree with TGS that the risks to our civilian population and our troops from Saddam's WMD are enormous. I just don't think this will deter Bush like TGS believes.

[Grampa Dave]

If he did what you posted, I would be even more impressed with him!

I think that both are going to start happening very soon.

He has allowed the UN perverts to show their irrelevance and danger to the world. As you noted, "We could blow off all the crap, all the losers, all the sadists and psychos on the world stage, and leave them to stew in their own muck."

I don't think that he will wait to hammer Soddomite!

[Grampa Dave]

His first message to the UN was his refusal to knell and take the phony global warming Kyoto treaty as gospel.

Since then there has been a list of slaps in the face of the anti Americans in charge of the UN.

I believe that he set this entire fiasco for the UN and France/Germany up last year. Then, he set the trap in his speech at the UN in September. He told them to act and do something or become irrelevant.

They behaved just like he expected and last week was they started to slide into irrelevance.

[riri]

Have you ever tried to talk to someone, other that on FR, about this?

I try to nonchalantly bring up subjects and then gauge the reaction. I usually get one of three reactions a. Some extremely simple point of view or 2. A reaction that almost borders on hostility that I would even bring up something besides sports, gossip or sitcoms or 3. The ever famous, "Well, you can't do anything about it anyway, so why watch it, worry about it, etc?"

[The Great Satan]

The giveaway here is that this whole thing with the UN is so eerily reminiscent of the Arafat gambit -- especially the way Powell has been deployed. I should have seen this coming a mile off. (So should Kofi and his pals, but they're smug, self-satisfied nincompoops who couldn't find their arses with both hands.) As you pointed out a while back, Dubya is using the post-9/11 crisis as a pretext to clean house. Bad actors are being removed from the stage. In the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing WMD blackmail threats, Team Bush sat down, took a good long look at the chessboard, and figured out who needed to be taken out. Saddam, of course, but he's the scorpion with the sting in his tail, so we have to deal with him last. But, in the interim, there were a lot of soft targets: Osama bin Laden, terrorism's foremost pitchman; al-Qaeda, now the largest supplier of human missiles to Saddam; the Taliban, AQ's hosts and enablers; Yasser Arafat, Saddam's ally and legitimator in the eyes of the eurosnobs; the United Nations, especially Kofi Annan and the "Axis of Weasels," whose duplicity put WMD in the hands of the world's most dangerous tyrant. 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. Bush and Powell knew from the get go that Arafat wasn't going to pull it out. They knew from the get go that the UN weapons inspections were a sham -- it is obviously physically impossible for weapons inspection to disarm Saddam Hussein, given the nature of his arsenal. But, we had to go through the motions: it buys us valuable time, and legitimates the hammer, once it comes down. This is all quite brilliant, I have to say. Can you imagine Al Gore doing this?

[Wordsmith]

Whatever is going on, one thing I know to an absolute certainty based on an entire career spent in public communications: The President cannot keep blustering about the use of force in Iraq for much longer without losing all credibility.

Thanks for stating this so clearly. This has been my biggest stumbling block in considering The Great Satan's hypothesis regarding the current state of affairs. I simply can't believe that Bush can hold out for another year given the rhetorical benchmark he's set. And I can't believe that the master communicators of the WH would have allowed him to adopt such a strong line if the possibility existed for him to have to sit on this words, and this level of national emotional buildup, as a bluff. Domestically, politically, it's just too risky. Bush surely realizes that the absolute worst outcome to all of this would be leaving the job unfinished and turning it over to a Democrat in 2004.

Although, I have to admit that after giving up television about a month ago and only getting my news from the Internet, it's amazing how less the "pressure" seems. Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all. Hmm...

[Grampa Dave]

I think that you have done an excellent summary on Miss Marples Stealth President has identified the evil agents and those who enable them like the UN.

Then they set this who thing in motion as you noted. What has happened since September 2002 is incredible.

The only thing you and I don't agree on is when we whack Saddam. I think that we will start the whacking and pruning early this coming March. If we don't then your theory applies.

Re the Goron. The Goron was the really dummy running for president in 2000. The really smart guy is our president, Thank God! I will be heading to our 10 am services/Mass to say just that and to pray for him and our nation very soon.

[Grampa Dave]

You posted an interesting observation: I have to admit that after giving up television about a month ago and only getting my news from the Internet, it's amazing how less the "pressure" seems. Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all. Hmm...

I gave up watching the Rat mantras/agendas posing as news on ABCNNBCBS years ago. Before that I stopped watching the screaming heads on Sunday tv.

I don't subscribe to a left wing fishwrap or the weekly non news mags, Slime and Newsweak.

Thanks to Free Republic, I'm more up on what is really happening and not caught up in the latest agenda/mass rage generated by the mediots.

[Wordsmith]

I think I see a nifty possibility here. Bush could make the failure of the UN the immediate issue, and leverage the situation to replace it.

Fascinating idea. Could certainly work, for the better of all. Even give the leftists something to do with their time, as they love setting up bureaucracies. Yes, classic Dubya. We shall see...

[The Great Satan]

Perhaps the great mass of Americans doesn't feel like Bush has built up to the rhetorical breaking point after all.

The majority of Americans don't want to be killed with anthrax, and will be quite happy to leave Saddam in the pressure cooker for another year or two if it means we can avoid that. But, yes, Bush has to follow up his rhetoric with something big -- he has to have something up his sleeve. And I think we've just figured out what that is likely to be. Immediately post-9/11, Team Bush recognized that we were in no position to retaliate against Saddam, and yet some kind of productive action was psychologically imperative. They needed to identify second-tier soft targets to hit back at. Their solution to that problem was to make the issue bin Laden and the Taliban. This is the same story, all over again: the intractable conflict with Saddam has been transmogrified onto a very tractable conflict with the UN and the Axis of Weasels. And, it's not that these proxy adversaries are innocent: they are 100% guilty. OBL needed killing. The Taliban needed killing. The UN needs killing. And that's what's coming down. Woo-hooo!

[Mitchell]

Here are some quotes from Pres. Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations:

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

...Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

...If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Pres. Bush virtually spelled everything out.

The UN can choose: to "serve the purpose of its founding," or to become "irrelevant." Implicit here is that the U.N. will wither away if it becomes irrelevant, and why would we waste time, energy, money, or political capital on a counterproductive empty shell?

Pres. Bush calls this a "test." A test is something which one passes or fails. And failure is failure, with consequences.

The final paragraph I quoted connects the purpose of the U.N. with the great traditions of liberty and learning, concluding with the very interesting statement that "the
promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time." Notice that he does not say that the U.N. will fulfill this promise itself, only that the promise of the U.N. can be fulfilled. This is very carefully worded to be consistent with it not being the U.N., but a newly organized group, who will fulfill that promise.