j_b

not true. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml not true. http://www.sunshine-project.org/

I think we were talking about what Blix said, not anyone from the pnw.

I agree with you Gregm yet I find it worthwhile to point out the discrepancies. I guess it begs the question, is Powell really this poorly informed? or is it something else?

Powell's Dubious Case for War By Phyllis Bennis, Foreign Policy in Focus February 5, 2003 U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council today wasn't likely to win over anyone not already on his side. He ignored the crucial fact that in the past several days (in Sunday's New York Times and in his Feb. 4 briefing of UN journalists) Hans Blix denied key components of Powell's claims. Blix, who directs the UN inspection team in Iraq, said the UNMOVIC inspectors have seen "no evidence" of mobile biological weapons labs, have "no persuasive indications" of Iraq-al Qaeda links, and no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving material used for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) either outside or inside Iraq. Dr. Blix also said there was no evidence of Iraq sending scientists out of the country, of Iraqi intelligence agents posing as scientists, of UNMOVIC conversations being monitored, or of UNMOVIC being penetrated. Further, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there." for the rest of the article: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15108

Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means. In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration's campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein. "Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place." Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents. Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists. He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections. Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction." More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html

the mole or something in the rat creek group dberdinka: I climbed Jupiter column a long time ago and my recollection is that the rock is stellar albeit a bit grungy. I can't recall the climb we did but it was a 5.8 route. Lotsa potential.

how about having a policy that is fair handed and takes into account the needs of the locals? if you want people's trust, you have to demonstrate your are trustworthy. Just saying so and behaving otherwise is not convincing. hogwash! we have control over both the embargo and going to war. It's not either or, by any stretch of logic. on the contrary, it means no attacks inside the US, which *is* the national interest. It does not take a genius to realize it.

how convenient! and you promise we won't make any 'mistakes' this time, right? well, I am sure this is very convincing to everyone as is reflected in opinion polls worldwide. Apparently we have to do something different and it does not consist in preparing to lobe 600 cruise missiles on Bagdad in the span of 48 hours. as far as answering your question, I first want to point out that you see fit to respond to that you feel you have to ... and I do the same. I don't feel that I have to respond to your grim accounting of a no-win situation for the people of that region but I'll humor you. The choice is not killing 100,000's of individuals through sanctions versus killing 100,000's through war, but effectively how to foster democracy in the middle east even if it means placing our own interest in that region on the back burner.

hang in there, it's not over. Last year we got most of our snowpack in early spring. Well, true it was not a nino year.

the grey one could be shuksan but I can't figure out the foreground with this view

Thunder is not often climbed that for sure. The rock looks half decent from where you are standing yeah Dru, it was my point since Off mentioned it being the same rock as Forbidden, so I aready knew I was wrong.

Matt's looks like Matriarch, Off's .... twin sister? but that ain't gneiss.

so if we supported him while being fully conscious of what he was up to, what has changed about us? how are we establishing the credibility of our alleged motives?

then why don't you provide us with examples of how the methods or process, do not determine the nature of the outcome?

the goal never justifes the means. In fact the means fully condition the end result. Ergo, if you want to stop violent crime don't use violence to reach that goal (unless you are protecting life in the heat of the action). The death penalty sustains violence.

well, since you mention his moral authority: "The Pope today issued his strongest message yet in opposition to possible war in Iraq, telling Vatican diplomats that military force must be “the very last option.” John Paul said a renewed conflict with Baghdad would only harm ordinary Iraqis, “already sorely tried” by UN sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990." http://breaking.examiner.ie/2003/01/13/story84104.html

I think OW mispoke. The photo is of the northwest face of forbidden but I scanned it reversed with the west ridge on the left.

allright dude, you just lost all credibility (if you had any).

it appears you are right! no wonder it looks odd. I initially thought I had scanned it wrong and on closer inspection I attributed it to the angle of the photo. Sorry about the confusion. I am quite stumped about yours. I don't seem to be very good at this game.

do you know how many citizens of these nations agree with attacking Iraq? a small minority (~20%) in the countries that have published polls. So, is the 'new' Europe the politicians who signed this letter or the immense majority of hte people they are supposed to represent?

what do you mean by 'not at all'? during the 80's Iraq had our financial, political, and military support (all approved by Rumsfeld by the way). Is this another case of your chronic lapse of conciousness? most death occurring now in Iraq are due to sanctions and the 91 gulf war. We should do everything we can to get rid of Saddam (as we always should have), but in the interest of being consistent, not create greater hardship for the people we purport to defend. oh please! You know as well as I do what the verdict is for someone firing a gun in a crowded theater, and it's not ruled accidental. I am pleased to see our conservative friends motivated by such goodwill towards the oppressed of this world. There is a lot of work to do and I hope you won't shy away from the task at hand anywhere it may be.

what these pictures can't hide is the fact that we were in bed with him while these murders and many others were committed. What did we do about it then? provide him with chemical weapon technology to use against Kurds and Iranians?

ja

nope, but I see the resemblance

Iraquis are killed for no reason anyway. This is not a situation in which one option results in no dead Iraqui civilians. If we go to war, some will be accidentally killed. If we do not, Saddam will continue to kill more intentionally. In case of war, the deaths will be accidental and then cease when the war ends, and all the folks who would have been gutted and raped in dark basements tomorrow, next week, and next year, will still be alive. We do not have the luxury of choosing an option where no Iraqui civilians will die, we do have the opportunity to choose an option where the dying will end ASAP. does this imply we had nothing to do with Saddam staying in power while we had full knowledge of what he was up to? or is it that since people will die we might as well do the killing ourselves for our purpose? I think you out-did yourself this time (if that was possible) 'accidental death by cruise missile'.... yeah right!