[Lerkfish]

today's CNN story should be read in its entirety...especially because there is such a marked disconnect between the questions and their answers...

of note:

"The dictator is no longer filling up mass graves or building weapons of mass destruction," he said.

.......Rice said the president promised after September 11 that he would do everything possible to avoid another attack on U.S. soil.....

........In Powell's remarks before a hearing on the State Department's budget, the secretary said he had no doubts a year ago that the Iraqi leader had weapons of mass destruction and the intent to use them.......He said his position was supported by "multisource intelligence" from several U.S. agencies, adding, "I took it with great confidence to the United Nations."

.............At Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, lectured Powell with a withering attack on the Bush administration, saying the president is using "shifting justifications for the war" and "refuses to take personal responsibility for what is at best an intelligence disaster."

"We were sold a bill of goods, and the buck will stop well short of the president's desk," Ackerman said.

"The truth was murdered before the first shot was fired" in Iraq, he said, and the president now suffers "a complete lack of credibility."


.......But Rice said the invasion of Iraq is giving the United States more credibility.

[voodoo]

Oh ho ho ho ho

That last bolded bit was king!

[boots]

hmm. I don't seem much in the way of questions in the article. It's more of a narrative form of just the responses given.

I also don't necessarily see a disconnect in Rice's statements. Surely, the administration (any administration, not just Bush's) would milk the Libya thing for all it is worth. And it probably is a valid argument.

Granted, it's just one example, and there are a lot of other examples in other context that run counter to the "increased credibility," but I'm willing to allow that Libya's decision was based on Iraq. In political terms (specifically regarding the Middle East), we're still early in the game, so more fallout is to be expected.

But I agree with Ackerman's "withering" statement that the buck should stop on GW's desk.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
"I took it with great confidence to the United Nations."

I think Powell is being a bit disingenuous here. It was widely reported that he refused to go to the U.N. with this stuff unless Tenet sat behind him, precisely because Powell didn't have confidence in the intel and wanted plausible deniability. Indeed, Tenet sat right behind him for the presentation. How often does that happen? Among other things, Powell also made the now infamous "Saddam is being contained" speech, and recently said "Had I known then what I know now, I might not have supported the war . . . ". I commend Powell for his loyalty, but unfortunately I have trouble believing anything he says - I'm afraid he's been trying to play both sides of the fence for too long.

As for Libya, I agree that any influence brought to bear by the invasion is commendable, and that's one reason I could support it in principle. However, it's worth noting that Khaddafi (sp) had already been in talks about disarming for some time.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think Powell is being a bit disingenuous here. It was widely reported that he refused to go to the U.N. with this stuff unless Tenet sat behind him, precisely because Powell didn't have confidence in the intel and wanted plausible deniability. Indeed, Tenet sat right behind him for the presentation. How often does that happen? Among other things, Powell also made the now infamous "Saddam is being contained" speech, and recently said "Had I known then what I know now, I might not have supported the war . . . ". I commend Powell for his loyalty, but unfortunately I have trouble believing anything he says - I'm afraid he's been trying to play both sides of the fence for too long.

Yes. The disconnect I see is between Powell's early statements saying that the containment strategy and inspections were working vs his later statements that he made to the UN.

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by boots:

Granted, it's just one example, and there are a lot of other examples in other context that run counter to the "increased credibility," but I'm willing to allow that Libya's decision was based on Iraq. In political terms (specifically regarding the Middle East), we're still early in the game, so more fallout is to be expected.

Sorry, that's an american pipedream. We had features about Libya's new policy for years in TV news. They begun with the extradition of the Lockerby suspects, they had intelligence meetings with Britain, they provided info after 9/11. But the most important issue: Gaddafi is under massive inner pressure, since after decades of sanctions the population became more and more unhappy with their leader - he feared an uprise. The "suprising" Libyan WMD debate is the work of more then nine months consulting with US/EU/UN diplomats. Libya acknowledged it's coincidence that the results could be made public now these days.

Add: The "new" emphasize of the Bush administration on this shows nothing more than the typical american's public attention span - they knew they could present this topic to an "uninformed" public!


Regards,
PB.

[Evan_11]

Lerk disagrees with a person so he/she must be wrong.

Saddam sympathizers unite! Your kind has killed 50 more. The grassroots campaign to overthrow the evil US regime is working. How many more innocent civilians will it take?....

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk disagrees with a person so he/she must be wrong.

Saddam sympathizers unite! Your kind has killed 50 more. The grassroots campaign to overthrow the evil US regime is working. How many more innocent civilians will it take?....

Are you even capable of making a point about the subject, matt?

[boots]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
Sorry, that's an american pipedream. We had features about Libya's new policy for years in TV news. They begun with the extradition of the Lockerby suspects, they had intelligence meetings with Britain, they provided info after 9/11. But the most important issue: Gaddafi is under massive inner pressure, since after decades of sanctions the population became more and more unhappy with their leader - he feared an uprise. The "suprising" Libyan WMD debate is the work of more then nine months consulting with US/EU/UN diplomats. Libya acknowledged it's coincidence that the results could be made public now these days.

Add: The "new" emphasize of the Bush administration on this shows nothing more than the typical american's public attention span - they knew they could present this topic to an "uninformed" public!


Regards,
PB.

Yes, that's a strong argument. It could be argued, however, that the events in Iraq added urgency and perhaps sped up the negotiations, regardless of what Libya's official statements say....lord knows we aren't the only ones who spin information.

It think it's probably both...I certainly don't give all the credit to Iraq, as the Administration seems to want done, but I don't discount that it probably influenced the tone and length of the negotiations.

[boots]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk disagrees with a person so he/she must be wrong.

Saddam sympathizers unite! Your kind has killed 50 more. The grassroots campaign to overthrow the evil US regime is working. How many more innocent civilians will it take?....

Where have has anyone here ever said they sympathize with Saddam?

So I assume you are a sympathizer with all the repressive regimes in Africa, too since you aren't actively trying to force invasions there too.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
today's CNN story should be read in its entirety.

And so should this article, especially this part.

Also note that this exchange not only points to the sole objective of Democrats (to bash and politically destroy Bush), but also makes one suspicious as to why CNN didn't include at least a mention of this exchange in their article.

Powell fielded the assertions calmly, defending the president's judgment and his own.

But when Brown contrasted Powell's military experience to Bush's record with the National Guard, saying the president "may have been AWOL" from duty, Powell exploded.

"First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about," Powell snapped.

"I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary," Brown replied.

"You made reference to the president," Powell shot back.

Brown then repeated his understanding that Bush may have been AWOL from guard duty.

"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think it is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
but also makes one suspicious as to why CNN didn't include at least a mention of this exchange in their article.

because they probably felt, as did powell, and as I do, that it was off topic.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
because they probably felt, as did powell, and as I do, that it was off topic.

Here we have Democrats grilling Powell on intelligence while mixing in these ridiculous allegations of Bush being AWOL.

CNN went to great lengths to report every negative statement directed at Powell except for the one negative statement that reveals their true intentions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Here we have Democrats grilling Powell on intelligence while mixing in these ridiculous allegations of Bush being AWOL.

CNN went to great lengths to report every negative statement directed at Powell except for the one negative statement that reveals their true intentions.

as I said, it was offtopic and therefore probably not included for that reason. Stories must have a certain length.
the grilling you refer to WAS on topic, as was their response. If you take another look at the article, the weight of the democratic quote vs. how many times rice and powell are quoted, the administration is more than fairly represented in that article, and their direct response to the question is included.

It's Lerk's Law that you can't see that article as balanced.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
CNN went to great lengths to report every negative statement directed at Powell except for the one negative statement that reveals their true intentions.

take another look at the article, spacefreak. there is only one quoted question, while there are half a dozen quoted answers. I would hardly call that "went to great lengths to report every negative statement" unless the whole hearing consisted of one question.

Your partisanship is blinding your ability to comprehend what you're reading, in this instance.

[xi_hyperon]

CNN did feature that tidbit on American Morning today, it's just not on the website.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Your partisanship is blinding your ability to comprehend what you're reading, in this instance.

"Partisanship" is blinding your ability to comprehend and admit that it was typical, low-rent "partisanship" crap for a Democrat official to engage in Bush AWOL rhetoric during a House International Relations Committee hearing.

You're just lucky you weren't there spouting your hogwash, because Powell would have put you in your place as well.

[boots]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"Partisanship" is blinding your ability to comprehend and admit that it was typical, low-rent "partisanship" crap for a Democrat official to engage in Bush AWOL rhetoric during a House International Relations Committee hearing.

You're just lucky you weren't there spouting your hogwash, because Powell would have put you in your place as well.

I don't know. It looks to me like Powell dodged it (as he should have!) so it wasn't worth reporting in the context of that article. In another article with a different focus, sure. I don't see any "smear" tactics by omitting something that didn't end up going anywhere.

And it certainly doesn't have any relevance in this thread. I think it would be more appropriate in the "Bush Service Record" thread. Or maybe we should start a "smokescreen" thread where both sides can keep a running total of how many issues are raised in order to dodge the real issues.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"Partisanship" is blinding your ability to comprehend and admit that it was typical, low-rent "partisanship" crap for a Democrat official to engage in Bush AWOL rhetoric during a House International Relations Committee hearing.

I think I did just that, if you'll read my post earlier. I said I felt, as powell did, that it was off-topic.
that's my way of saying I agreed with Powell it was inappropriate to the proceedings.

again, your partisanship blinded you from reading that, I suppose.

I believe that means you owe me an apology.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I believe that means you owe me an apology.

Bwahahahahaha!! Don't hold your breath, Lerk.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Bwahahahahaha!! Don't hold your breath, Lerk.

hehe. I know. I didn't say I expected one, only that he owed me one.

[FeLiZeCaT]

quote:

"Blablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablablablablabla," he said.

.......Rice said blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablabla.....

........In Powell's remarks before a hearing on the State Department's budget,
the secretary said hblablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablab lablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablabla.......
He said blablablablablablablablablablablablabla "gopher intelligence" from several moles, adding, "blablablablablablablablablablablablabla"

.............At Wednesday's blablabla session, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, blablabla Powell about his relationship with those rascals,
saying blablablablablablablablablablablablabla "saving face at all cost" and "not my fault their fault."

"Lies!" Ackerman said.

"Lies!" in Iraq, he said, blablablablablablablablablablablablabla "a complete lack of credibility."


.......But Rice said blablablablablablablablablablablablabla
__________________________________________________
I am sorry.

This is all I really understand. The whole thing seems more like background noise to me.

A lot of talking, arguing, truth distortion (we may never get to meet that truth after all...). Probably a lot of paper is being shredded as we speak, or produced...

Why bother and venture in a lot of talking? Where are the facts? Who has the facts?

No facts, no much of a case but more blabla.

And how much does it cost to Americans? How many jobs are swallowed in that big waste of time and money?

Questions, questions...

[eklipse]

^ Post of the thread ^

[spacefreak]

Turns out there was some other low-rent, partisan disrespect at the meeting. Sure enough, Powell put them in there place.

The general chewed out the buck private yesterday.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, a retired four-star general known for his even temperament, paused yesterday during a congressional hearing to berate a Hill staffer for shaking his head as Powell offered a defense of his prewar statements on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The public scolding came after Powell had already endured a number of attacks by Democrats on the administration's Iraq policy during an appearance before the House International Relations Committee. He had just snapped at a member of Congress who had casually declared President Bush "AWOL" from the Vietnam War.

Powell was recalling for the panel his review of the prewar intelligence. "I went and lived at the CIA for about four days to make sure that nothing was," he began, when he paused and glared at a staffer seated behind the members of Congress.

"Are you shaking your head for something, young man, back there?" Powell asked. "Are you part of these proceedings?"

Powell's unusual remarks threatened to derail the hearing. Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a 12-year veteran of the House, objected, "Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a witness reprimand a staff person in the middle of a question."

Powell shot back, "I seldom come to a meeting where I am talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by head shakes."

[Face Ache]

Sounds like Powell is under some pressure.

Pity he blew his credibility.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk disagrees with a person so he/she must be wrong.

Saddam sympathizers unite! Your kind has killed 50 more. The grassroots campaign to overthrow the evil US regime is working. How many more innocent civilians will it take?....

Strange, if your "logic" (and it has to go in quotes since it doesn't really fit the dictionary definition) makes everyone who isn't interested in being as hopelessly mentally retarded as you are a saddam hussein sympathiser, then what does that same strange brand of "logic" make the people who dribble and drool as much as you do?

[stupendousman]

I think that the problem is that a lot of posters here, and a lot of the anti-Bush people are simply disconnected from the average American.

Most think that they exageratted the threat, but couldn't give a rat's ass. Iraq was lead by a mad man who if he didn't currently have WMD in his possesion, either did at one time and got rid of them, or was likely trying to get them. I'd hazzard a guess that a huge percentage of Americans thought it was a mistake not to take out Saddam back during the first Gulf War and whatever the reason was used to finish the job was fine with them. It's not like Bush attacked an innocent aspirin factory for no other reason than to take the headlines away from some scandal.

A lot of crying of spilt milk, if you ask me.

[Spheric Harlot]

10,000 dead innocent human bystanders are not "spilt milk".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
10,000 dead innocent human bystanders are not "spilt milk".

To a right wing person like that, no one's life except their own has any value.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
To a right wing person like that, no one's life except their own has any value.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:

I meant in reference to the "spilt milk" comment.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I meant in reference to the "spilt milk" comment.

I understand now... my apologies....

[swrate]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
today's CNN story should be read in its entirety...especially because there is such a marked disconnect between the questions and their answers...

of note:

.......But Rice said the invasion of Iraq is giving the United States more credibility



More credibility? now that's a joke

How can a governement, who did not follow the UN's advices and recommendations, and now uses the fruit of collective group's efforts i.e. Lybia, have more credibility?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by swrate:
.......But Rice said the invasion of Iraq is giving the United States more credibility



More credibility? now that's a joke

How can a governement, who did not follow the UN's advices and recommendations, and now uses the fruit of collective group's efforts i.e. Lybia, have more credibility?

The UN lost credibility because its threats were exposed as empty. It's 12 years of "binding" resolutions would never have been enforced but for the US' use of force. A binding resolution that in effect is meaningless and certainly not binding is incredible. That changed because of the United States. Even leaving aside the issue of the invasion itself, the only reason that Blix' inspectors were readmitted after Resolution 1441 was because the US moved troops to Iraq's border.

Now, according to the New York Times, even then Saddam's regime thought that the whole thing was just a bluff New York Times because "Mr. Hussein believed that a "casualty averse" White House would order a bombing campaign that Iraq could withstand . . ." Saddam thought that because of the pattern that preceded in the previous 12 years. The UN would make a threat and it was never really carried out. The most we did was insignificant bombing that didn't scare him. That's all he thought we'd do. We were not credible.

After the invasion began, however, Libya voluntarily disarmed. The Italian Prime Minister says that Gaddafi said to him that he did so because he was worried that he would be next. Syria has also been considerably more compliant since the invasion and Saudi Arabia has (finally) begun cracking down on its Wahhabist exporters. Arguably, this is at least in part a response to the Administrations tough policies. When this president threatens to use force, its believable. That's practical credibility.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Sounds like Powell is under some pressure.

Pity he blew his credibility.

I think he senses that too.

Remember the rumblings from last year? There's no way he'll stay if Bush gets a second term, IMHO.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Turns out there was some other low-rent, partisan disrespect at the meeting. Sure enough, Powell put them in there place.

Why is a staffer shaking his head and a solitary off-topic question more important than the actual topic of this hearing?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The UN lost credibility because its threats were exposed as empty. It's 12 years of "binding" resolutions would never have been enforced but for the US' use of force. A binding resolution that in effect is meaningless and certainly not binding is incredible. That changed because of the United States. Even leaving aside the issue of the invasion itself, the only reason that Blix' inspectors were readmitted after Resolution 1441 was because the US moved troops to Iraq's border.

You are quite wrong.

UN 1441 was passed on November 8, 2002.

UN Inspectors arrived in Iraq November 18, 2002.

Bush authorized the deployment of troops to Iraq December 21, 2002.

Bush announces in his SOTU speech January 28, 2003 that the US is ready to invade Iraq even without a UN mandate.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You are quite wrong.

UN 1441 was passed on November 8, 2002.

UN Inspectors arrived in Iraq November 18, 2002.

Bush authorized the deployment of troops to Iraq December 21, 2002.

Bush announces in his SOTU speech January 28, 2003 that the US is ready to invade Iraq even without a UN mandate.

And why did France and Russia suddenly become interested in getting tough with Iraq when they had spent the previous three years trying to get the embargo lifted?

1441 would not have existed but for the US pressing the issue. Also, check out Chirac's Feb 2003 interview with Time Magazine, where he says that the US threat of force and deployments were why Iraq was beginning to cooperate. You can find it. Last time I posted it I found it on the French President's web site. It's in English.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And why did France and Russia suddenly become interested in getting tough with Iraq when they had spent the previous three years trying to get the embargo lifted?

1441 would not have existed but for the US pressing the issue. Also, check out Chirac's Feb 2003 interview with Time Magazine, where he says that the US threat of force and deployments were why Iraq was beginning to cooperate. You can find it. Last time I posted it I found it on the French President's web site. It's in English.

Quite so. Bush was correct to bring this issue to the fore. And the UN was quite right to (with US pressure) to use the threat of force to get Iraq back into compliance.

But that isn't what you said. You said the invasion gave the UN credibility. That is quite disastrously wrong.

Going to the UN, pressuring the council, getting the resolution all gave the UN credibility.

Making public speeches saying we were ready to invade regardless of what the UN decided, calling the UN "irrelevant", disparaging the inspection process (which we initiated!!) at every turn, massing troops without provocation (Iraq was already complying), and then saying that even though Blix reported adequate cooperation and no evidence to support the White House's alarmist claims about WMD we were invading anyway negated all of the goodwill, solidarity and credibility that we had worked for.

Not to mention the "dodgy" dossier, Powell's ridiculous presentation that was almost immediately refuted by his own former top Intel advisor (as well as others), Cheney's "reconstituted nuclear weapons" and Rice's "mushroom cloud" over a US city have all effectively destroyed US credibility abroad and now threatens to ruin it at home.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But that isn't what you said. You said the invasion gave the UN credibility.

No, that's not what I said. I said that after 12 years of waffling and empty threats, the UN had lost any credibility. If it got any credibility back, it got it back because the US was willing to use force, even when other Security Council members manifestly were not. All they were interested in was more empty threats.

Then I went on to link to the New York Times article that indicates that Saddam's regime still believed that the US also lacked credibility. They believed that our threats to invade were empty as well. No doubt previous empty threats such as Desert Fox were reponsible.

It turned out they were wrong. This time, or threats were real. Now post invasion, other rogue states (the most recent example being Libya) are dealing with the fact that unlike the UN and what they might have thought previously about us, our threats are in fact credible. That got their attention. Hence the change in tune.


Notice: this has absultely nothing to do with solidarity, goodwill, happy thoughts, or any of that. It's Realpolitik credibility that I am talking about, not the phoney feel-good kind.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that's not what I said. I said that after 12 years of waffling and empty threats, the UN had lost any credibility. If it got any credibility back, it got it back because the US was willing to use force, even when other Security Council members manifestly were not. All they were interested in was more empty threats.

Then I went on to link to the New York Times article that indicates that Saddam's regime still believed that the US also lacked credibility. They believed that our threats to invade were empty as well. No doubt previous empty threats such as Desert Fox were reponsible.

It turned out they were wrong. This time, or threats were real. Now post invasion, other rogue states (the most recent example being Libya) are dealing with the fact that unlike the UN and what they might have thought previously about us, our threats are in fact credible. That got their attention. Hence the change in tune.


Notice: this has absultely nothing to do with solidarity, goodwill, happy thoughts, or any of that. It's Realpolitik credibility that I am talking about, not the phoney feel-good kind.

I am constantly amazed that a person with such an astounding grasp of history can continuously mischaracterize and distort the actual events of the last 12 years regarding Iraq.

"waffling"??

How on earth can you describe the total dismantling of Iraq's WMD programs and the destruction of its stockpiles as "waffling"???

Yes, we know the process weakend in 1996 and utterly broke down in 1998. But it wasn't because they were unsucessful. It was because they were remarkably successful.

Now Kay's report vindcates just how extraordinary the UN's work during that 12 years had been. Iraq destroyed even the hidden stuff because it realized nothing could happen until the UN and the sanctions were over.

A year ago, your distortion of the facts might have passed since we could claim "we just didn't know". Now, after the fact, you can no longer hide behind that argument.

The UN inspection process worked. Period. That should be clearer to us now more than ever.

As for "empty threats", I'm not sure how you could possibly consider the death of half a million children due to sanctions as an "empty threat". What? Was Iraq a blissful and prosperous paradise for the last 12 years?

Discrediting the UN's efforts over the last 12 years was last year's talking points, Simey, when we were arguing that the UN process could never work to secure Iraq.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I am constantly amazed that a person with such an astounding grasp of history can continuously mischaracterize and distort the actual events of the last 12 years regarding Iraq.

"waffling"??

I'm sorry, when did Iraq report to the UN Security Council that all its obligations under the long list of Resolutions had been complied with? I'm afraid I don't recall that moment, or at least, not when anyone believed them. Nor do I recall the UN verification that its mission was complete. I do however, recall the UN inspectors being withdrawn under Iraqi pressure, followed by four years when there were no inspections. I also recall that both the UN and all its key members were convinced that Iraq had restarted their programmes. Nevertheless, two key members of the Security council still wanted to lift sanctions. Then Bush came along and suddenly they voted for 1441, which put more demands on Iraq and plainly assumed that the inspectors work, interrupted by Saddam was not complete. Nevertheless, they weren't willing to actually do what they plainly threatened to do. Their threats amounted to shouting Stop! Or I will say Stop! again!


UN Waffling.

And your Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry, when did Iraq report to the UN Security Council that all its obligations under the long list of Resolutions had been complied with? I'm afraid I don't recall that moment, or at least, not when anyone believed them. Nor do I recall the UN verification that its mission was complete. I do however, recall the UN inspectors being withdrawn under Iraqi pressure, followed by four years when there were no inspections. I also recall that both the UN and all its key members were convinced that Iraq had restarted their programmes. Nevertheless, two key members of the Security council still wanted to lift sanctions. Then Bush came along and suddenly they voted for 1441, which put more demands on Iraq and plainly assumed that the inspectors work, interrupted by Saddam was not complete. Nevertheless, they weren't willing to actually do what they plainly threatened to do. Their threats amounted to shouting Stop! Or I will say Stop! again!


UN Waffling.

And your Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

So now you've moved the goalposts from 12 years to 4 years. I'll take that as an admission that your previous post was a distortion. Thank you.

And you're moving the goalposts again between the invasion giving the UN credibility, and Bush's diplomatic efforts leading to UN 1441.

So I'll take that as an admission you were wrong on that point as well.

Excellent waffling, I must say. You do it exceptionally well.

As for MMQing, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not spending a year demonizing the UN for "doing nothing", finding out the UN disarmament was successful beyond our wildest dreams, and begging the UN to legitimize our plans for "elections" qualifies or not.

Again, bad-mouthing the UN's record on Iraq is on last year's talking points memo. You need to stick to the 2004 talking points that the UN has an important role in blessing the US's plan for getting the hell out before the election.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The bottom line for the purposes we are talking about here is this: Who do you think would keep Gaddafi awake at night more, George W Bush, or Hans Blix?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The bottom line for the purposes we are talking about here is this: Who do you think would keep Gaddafi awake at night more, George W Bush, or Hans Blix?

Neither. His rapidly eroding grip on power and rising internal dissent were keeping him up at night. He needed to get out from under international sanctions.

After all, the Lockerbie negotiations began before the Iraq war.

Once again, it would seem that US efforts before the invasion were remarkably effective. The threat of force was enough to give "credibility".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The threat of force was enough to give "credibility".

That's the mistake in thinking that we made all through the 1990s. Threats of force are only credible as long as they are credible. If you declare outright and in advance that the threat of force will never in fact mature into force (as DeVillipin tried to do with respect to Iraq), then the threat evaporates.

On the other hand, once you have demonstrated your willingness to make good on your threats, you may in the future not need to do it again. The demonstration works pour encourager les autres. This is a lesson that Gaddafi learned in 1986 the hard way, and if his words to Burlosconi is to be believed, he learned it the easy way in 2003.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's the mistake in thinking that we made all through the 1990s. Threats of force are only credible as long as they are credible. If you declare outright that the threat of force will never mature into force (as DeVillipin tried to do with respect to Iraq), then the threat evaporates.

And if you threaten to use force unless B happens, and you use force anyway, even though B indeed happened, then the power of the threat for future use also evaporates.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's the mistake in thinking that we made all through the 1990s. Threats of force are only credible as long as they are credible. If you declare outright that the threat of force will never mature into force (as DeVillipin tried to do with respect to Iraq), then the threat evaporates.

Once again I have to take issue with your timeline. France's regrettable devolution into an intractible positon on Iraq was considerably later in the diplomatic meltdown surrouding the so-called "second resolution".

But once again you are villifying France for a position that turned out to be quite correct. Had Blix been given more time, the WMD threat would have been even more thoroughly debunked, thereby substantiating France, Germany and Russia's contention that invasion was not necessary as the threat was not credible.

And the US did use force in the 1990's. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that only a US military coup is enough to illicit cooperation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Once again I have to take issue with your timeline. France's regrettable devolution into an intractible positon on Iraq was considerably later in the diplomatic meltdown surrouding the so-called "second resolution".

Not really, they, along with Russia, were pushing for the sanctions to be lifted at least as early as 1999. At that time the punitive Resolutions were all supposed to be in full effect. The inspector's report at that time was also quite clear. They thought that their work was incomplete.

What followed after 1441 was really a continuation of an attitude that began much earlier. It was that brief moment of toughness that was the exception. Personally, I think they gambled that Iraq would cry uncle after 1441. Foolishly, he didn't take their hint and that forces them to decide between supporting the US, or, well, you know. In effect they chose the latter - even though they and no doubt you would vehemently deny it. I'm still amazed that they made that decision.

But my point about the credibility of threats of force is much broader than just Iraq. It's really a general principle. Never make threats you aren't at least plausibly willing to follow through on. Otherwise you end up on the wrong end of the Boy Who Cried Wolf story.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And if you threaten to use force unless B happens, and you use force anyway, even though B indeed happened, then the power of the threat for future use also evaporates.

repeating for emphasis.