State of the Nation Address

[Dru]

then theres bush, we have "evidence" of saddams hidden weapons, but we cant show it to the world, its taken us a year and a half to fake it up good enough to present to the security council. like he really cares about the safety of his iraqi informants if he has any.

[j_b]

"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?"

 

by removing the problem we created. I answered your question, I'd appreciate some answers on mine.

 

 

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.

[MtnGoat]

"how convenient! and you promiss we won't make any mistake this time, right?"

 

I am at a loss to determine what you want as a sufficient answer. If we are to be held chained to a particular view because of what was done in the past, no change is possible anyway, because no one should trust us and therefore no example of changes can be permitted.

 

"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."

 

Of course you do not wish to account for that grim calculus, because the condition you seem to be claiming exists, in which no innocents die, is not factual. You have not rebutted this, no matter how grim it is, because you can't. Unfortunately ignoring grim situations doesn't change their existense. Nor does it defuse the falsity of anyone claiming that not going to war will mean no innocents die.

 

I asked you for specifically for an idea on how to end this problem, and you have no answer.

 

You claim we should be effectively placing democracy at the head of our policy, but cannot show what "effective" policy this is, nor how you define effective.

 

When we set national interest aside, does that mean accepting more attacks inside the US? What is appropriate in that situation, in your enlightened, non specified effective policy?

 

 

[j_b]

I am at a loss to determine what you want as a sufficient answer. If we are to be held chained to a particular view because of what was done in the past, no change is possible anyway, because no one should trust us and therefore no example of changes can be permitted.

 

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.

 

Of course you do not wish to account for that grim calculus, because the condition you seem to be claiming exists, in which no innocents die, is not factual. You have not rebutted this, no matter how grim it is, because you can't. Unfortunately ignoring grim situations doesn't change their existense. Nor does it defuse the falsity of anyone claiming that not going to war will mean no innocents die.

 

hogwash! we have control over both the embargo and going to war. It's not either or, by any stretch of logic.

 

When we set national interest aside, does that mean accepting more attacks inside the US?

 

on the contrary, it means no attacks inside the US, which *is* the national interest. It does not take a genius to realize it.

[MtnGoat]

"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."

 

Yet your questions seem to claim that saying so isn't enough and we will not be permitted to show we'll do what we intend. How are we supposed to do what we say, when we are not permitted to say and then do?

 

I'm not sure what policy on Iraq you think takes into accout the needs of those locals, because you haven't told me what your ideas are.

 

Other than policies which take their needs into account and do what we say. That is not specific. If it is, my contending that we will get rid of Saddam while taking their needs into account ought to be specific enough.

 

 

"hogwash! we have control over both the embargo and going to war. It's not either or, by any stretch of logic."

 

Then give us an outline for some kind of action, more specific than "taking their needs into account".

 

"on the contrary, it means no attacks inside the US, which *is* the national interest. It does not take a genius to realize it."

 

What if this supposition is incorrect?

 

I have to admit though, you're doing better with answering direct questions. Thanks for that.

 

[Fairweather]

I'm sure Iraqi civilians will die. Sad, but the blood will be on Saddam's hands, not ours. If he choses to place his anti-aircraft defenses near/on hospitals, mosques, "baby milk factories", and schools, we will have no choice but to destroy those targets.

 

Flame away, but I would not trade the life of ONE American serviceman for the lives of 1000 Iraqi civilians. The Iraqi people stood still while a tyrant was in their midst. Now some innocents will likely have to pay. Sad, but true. This blood will be on Saddam's hands.

[j_b]

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

[MtnGoat]

betcha he's playing a shell game with inspectors. He's probably working from leaks from the UN, moving stuff around. I'd bet he's dissassembled the largest pieces of hardware to make them easier to hide and move, and has most if not all of what was known in 98, if he hasn't added to it or moved some outside Iraq. And the whole time, I'll bet they're having a good laugh at how gullible (some) westerners are. Time will tell.