March 2003 - weblog posts

3/28/2003; 5:59:57 AM: George W. Bush - International Pariah
According to this story, Dubya may not be able to make a scheduled May visit to Canada because of "the likelihood of mass demonstrations in Ottawa and heckling from legislators when Bush addressed Parliament."  This is the country closest to us geographically and culturally!  I wonder what country Dubya could visit without provoking mass demonstrations?  Not four of our largest allies - England, Australia, Spain and Italy.  Out of the G-7, I would guess only Japan.

3/26/2003; 6:03:56 AM:

Cheney blantantly lying again
This Reuters story starts with how obviously fake the documents Dubya cited in his State of the Union address:
A few hours and a simple internet search was all it took for U.N. inspectors to realize documents backing U.S. and British claims that Iraq had revived its nuclear program were crude fakes, a U.N. official said.

What is really amazing is the end of the story:
The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium.  The answer was no.  IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei informed the U.N. Security Council in early March that the Niger proof was fake and that three months with 218 inspections at 141 sites had produced "no evidence or plausible indication" Iraq had a nuclear program.  But last week Vice President Dick Cheney repeated the U.S. position and said that ElBaradei was wrong about Iraq. "We know (Iraqi President Saddam Hussein) has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons," he said.

What little evidence we have is obviously fake, but that doesn't stop Cheney from repeating the disproved fact as true.

3/25/2003; 10:50:52 PM: What Turkey's invasion could mean
Turkey has sent troops over the border.  Aid that Dubya promised has not materialized.  I thought I saw somewhere an article that Syria expressing outrage over the pending humanitarian problems in Iraq.  Why can't Syria and Iran send their forces into Iraq for "humanitarian reasons", just like Turkey?  They can take along supplies and let the media tag along.  What is the US going to say?  "We invaded first, so take that food and get out of here"?  "Stop that or we are going to the UN"?  They could easily let us do most of the fighting then grab the land away from us.

3/25/2003; 6:30:10 AM:

What do you know - Dubya breaks another promise
As I posted here, Dubya promised on Sunday at 1pm that "massive amounts of humanitarian aid should begin moving within the next 36 hours."  Today, the Guardian has a story that not only has the aid not begun moving, but that "it would be days rather than hours before humanitarian aid could be unloaded."  In the mean time, "Unicef warned that 100,000 children under the age of five were at risk" because of the lack of decent drinking water.  The population of the area is around 2 milion, so we are talking about killing 5% of the local civilian population.

Atrios mentions in a post that "I'm tired of the latest rash of columns by well-meaning liberal do-gooders, and their enablers on the right, who are pleading for the anti-war left...to change their focus to ensuring that that post-war Iraq is a pleasant place."  What I think the anti-war left needs to do is hold Dubya, Blair and their minions to their word and expose their lies.  It looks to me that they have decided that the spin is going to be that everything is going as plan even when it obviously isn't.  See this British officer's quote on the delay in the unloading of aid - Brig Dutton said he was pleased with progress, but added: "It was inevitable that we would be slightly slower in some areas than we originally expected, and faster in others, which has been the case."

3/25/2003; 6:11:42 AM:

An interesting conversation on Brad Delong's blog
Brad has an interesting ramble here, "It's very clear what has to be done if we are to turn this diplomatic *** into something that will help build a better world."  "Your tasks are fourfold: First, to strengthen the Concert of the Atlantic."  "Second, to soft-pedal Bush's diplomatic incompetence...."  "Third, to focus 200% on the liberation of Iraq from tyranny."  "Fourth, hold tight to Tony Blair".  There are lots of comments.

The problem I see is that we are not going to get back into the world's good garces until we admit (1) that we had no evidence that Iraq had WMD's, (2) that the pre-emptive war idea is a bad one and (3) that we pulled a fast one on the UN Security Council when we agreed that Resolution 1441 would be a two-phase approach and then used it to justify invading Iraq.  Until then, we are a rogue nation whose word it not trustworthy.

3/24/2003; 8:57:14 PM:

Why are we marching on Baghdad?
Daily Kos, amoung many places, has a post on our march on Baghdad.  Now, beginning the siege of Baghdad as soon as possible sounded great when we thought the Iraqis were going to surrender left and right, but that is not how things have worked.  Instead, we have a huge logistics trial that is wide open to attack by irregulars and for what?  If we can't take Basra quickly, we certainly aren't going to take Baghdad quickly.  My guess is that our forces will surround Baghdad and then sit there as things get mopped behind it.

The reason is food.  Once we surround Baghdad, no more food will go in.  If we sit there for weeks, civilians will start dying.  "We have come to liberate you by starving you to death."

3/24/2003; 6:25:59 AM: It really has been a French plot
[A wrote this about a week ago and have just gotten around to posting it]

Atrios mentions Digby pointing out the ridiculousness of this National Review piece by Michael Ledeen theorizing that there is a French-German plot to bring down the US.

Ledeen has got a lot of things right. I think there is a French plot to bring down the US, but Ledeen just has the details wrong.

Let's face it, the US under Clinton's leadership was leaving Europe far behind. The US economy had the longest sustained expansion in history while Europe just kind of floated along. Most of the world's free capital was flowing into the US stock market. The Euro, France's greatest diplomatic achievement in recent history, had dropped steadily against the dollar since its launch. While France and the rest of the EU were struggling with chronic budget deficits, the US was running a surplus while projecting more surpluses for the foreseeable future. On the diplomatic front, the US was solving some many of the world's problems - Bosnia, Kosovo, North Ireland, North Korea, Isreal-Palestine - that France and the EU were being left on the sidelines. And if Gore won the Presidency, one would expect more of the same.

So what was France to do to re-establish itself as a major player on the world stage? I think France came up with a brilliant plan - have an inexperienced, unqualified candidate elected President! To achieve this plan, the French first planted utterly ridiculous stories about Gore in the media. "Gore invented the internet", "Wacko Gore advisor tells him to be an alpha-male and to dress in earth tones", "Gore discovered Love Canal", "Gore claims he and Tipper were the basis for Love Story". All of these were ludicrously wrong and easily disproved. How else but the involvement of a foreign government do you explain their acceptance by all the major media as true?

Next, the French funded Dubya's campaign. Do you really think that after spending 8 years carping about Clinton's drug use and draft dodging that Republicans would donate a record amount to the campaign of someone who would never explain how much drugs he used and went AWOL? Be serious! The French had to be cutting deals with companies with a wink-wink understanding that part of the money would be donated to Dubya's campaign.

When Dubya actually lost the election, the French must have pulled out their secret files and blackmailed some of the Supreme Court justices. How else do you explain an opinion that was a repudiation of the Rehnquist's doctrine of supporting states' rights?

The French had to be happy after the selection. US consumer confidence plunged after the election. The economy went into a recession. The drop in the stock market became a nose-dive. The US surplus became a deficit. The US dollar dropped after the election, built back up almost to its pre-election high, then dropped again. On the diplomatic front, the US was starting to anger many of its allies, but France didn't have a chance to assert its leadership.

Then September 11th came and with it the opportunity for another nefarious French plot. This plot was dependent on a man who is obviously a French mole, Donald Rumsfeld. Clearly, anybody who keeps making comments so damaging to US interests has to be a paid agent of another government. Look at his latest furor, saying that the US was ready to invade without Britian. British critics were leaping on it as an opportunity to back out the war coalition.

I think it is obvious that the French gave Rumsfeld the goal of provoking the US to invade Iraq. At first blush, it seems an impossible goal, as Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or September 11th. Iraq was extremely contained and not a threat to any country. But Rumsfeld advocacy of invading Iraq slowly turned the Dubya administration. But Colin Powell was providing quite an argument against invading, so the French struck boldly. The French UN ambassador invited Powell for a friendly discussion about Iraq, then must have slipped some mind-altering drugs into his drinking water. How also do you explain Powell's transformation from a moderate, rational thinker to a serial liar dedicated to the cause of war?

The French, knowing that the US was going to provoke a showdown with Iraq, leapt up as the defender of international law. All the other world powers took a while to realize that the US was seriously considering a pre-emptive invasion of a country that was not an imminent threat. By the time they realized it, France had secured its position as the foremost opponent of the US.

France's plan has been wildly successful. The US economy is close to a second recession. Dubya has proposed in his budget a record deficit and that was without the cost of the Iraq war. The US is almost universally reviled and the France's policies revered. Tony Blair, France's biggest rivial in Europe, could be toppled by the war. The US's military will be so tied up in Iraq - 60,000 to 200,000 troops will be tied up there for the foreseeable future - that the EU will once again have the most free military might for tackling world problems. The dollar has recently plunged against the Euro. Considering that the White House has angered just about every OPEC minister, it seems like only a matter of time until OPEC switches to the Euro for pricing oil. With the US's huge current account deficit, the US economy is totally dependent on foreign funding to stay afloat.

3/23/2003; 10:03:11 PM: Dubya discuss humanitarian aid
From the impromptu press conference on Dubya's return from Camp David:
"The question is on humanitarian aid. In the south of Iraq, coalition forces have worked hard to make the port area secure, to make the transit of humanitarian aid as safe as possible. As -- I was told this morning in my briefings that humanitarian aid should begin moving -- massive amounts of humanitarian aid should begin moving within the next 36 hours. And that's going to be very positive news for a lot of people who have suffered a long time under Saddam Hussein.

We've got a massive ground assault going on, and right behind it will be a massive movement of humanitarian aid, to help the people of Iraq. We have made that promise to the people of this country that we will do everything we can to protect innocent life. And we're doing that. And we'll do everything we can to help the Iraqi people. First thing, of course, that will help the Iraqi people is to rid them from a brutal dictator, somebody who has stayed in power through mutilation and rape and torture. Somebody who has starved his own people so he could build palaces. When free from that dictatorship, life will be a lot better.

But we also understand we have an obligation -- and this is just not America, it's coalition forces -- have an obligation to put food and medicine in places so the Iraqi people can live a normal life and have hope. And that's exactly what's going to happen shortly when the area is completely -- safe enough to move the equipment forward. "

"Massive amounts" of aid should begin moving soon...if it is safe enough to move the aid forward.  However, it can move less than 50 miles before it hits Basra.  The aid will competing for trucks and road space with the logistic effort to supply the troops - my guess is that aid will lose.

In the meantime, from the Agonist:"Both water and electricity have been cut off in Basra since March 21, and electricity cables powering the major Wafa al-Quaid water station -- which supplies 2 million people and is the biggest source in the region -- have been destroyed, the Red Cross said March 23."

But don't worry boys and girls, Dubya is pleased with the progress of the war, so we should be happy. 

3/21/2003; 11:16:21 PM: War is the easy part 
Read this AP story on Yahoo.  That "poor, dirty, wrecked town pocked by shrapnel from the last Gulf war" - we (the US) are now responsible for rebuilding it.  The people in the town that "patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food" - we are now responsible for feeding them.  The Turks invading Kurdish lands - we are responsible for repelling them.  This is not some video game where we get to keep blowing things up until we take down the big boss, then move on to another game.  The number of people that we are responsible for their basic rights has increased by about 10%.

3/21/2003; 6:37:42 AM: What are we going to do with the Iraqi military?
In reading about our plans to get the Iraqi military to surrender, I can't help but wonder what are we going to do with them in post-war Iraq?  If a general surrenders his troops, are we going to let his troops keep their weapons?  I don't think it would be a good idea to have (and fund) a competing army in Iraq.  No, we are going to have to disarm every Iraqi soldier and tell them to find a real job.  My guess is that their job skills will not translate well to the civilian world, so they are going to go from having a well-paying prestigious job to being unemployed.  We are talking about a significant part of the male young adult population who are going to be much worse off in a post-war Iraq.  This strikes me as a formula for potential disaster.  Has anyone heard any administration plan for Iraqi soldiers?

3/21/2003; 6:21:19 AM:

Dubya on the cheap in Iraq
Arianna Huffington wrote in Salon an article talking about how much money Dubya plans to spend money and how it is really needed here.  She mentions, "As a first step toward Iraqi prosperity, the president's ambitious postwar plan earmarks $100 million to ensure that Iraq's 25,000 schools have all the supplies and support necessary to 'function at a standard level of quality' -- including books and supplies for 4.1 million Iraqi schoolchildren."  She then says, "I'm sure those schools in Oregon that are being forced to shut down a month early due to inadequate funding, or the low-income students in California who are suing the state in a desperate effort to obtain adequate textbooks and qualified teachers of their own, would love to see the same kind of 'tangible evidence' of President Bush's support. "

Unfortunately, that is the type of support Dubya has always provided - lots of statements about how generous the help will be, but not much money when it comes time for the rubber to hit the road.  $100 million for 25,000 means $4,000 per school.  That is about the money the US spends to educate one kid for one year!  $100 million for 4.1 million children is about $25 per kid, which is about enough to buy one textbook per kid.  That's ambitious?!?  This is a country with a 70% literacy rate - one book per kid is not going to impress them.

What's impressive is how Dubya can underfund yet again some social program, act like he is such a generous guy and the media swallow hook, line and sinker.

3/20/2003; 9:26:15 PM: Why is no one commenting on how the war is starting?
It is really odd that we have troops going in before we started under serious air attack.  In Yahoo, they talked about the troops were going in to prevent oil wells being set on fire.  Other reports I have read talked about troops marching on Basra.  Why the herky-jerky start to the air campaign?  I might see dust storms causing problems for planes based nearby, but what about the cruise missiles and the B-52's?

3/20/2003; 6:09:54 AM: Iraq Coalition Trivia Challenge!
For how many of our 30 allies can you name one of their cities? Below are the coalition members. I could name cities in 16 of the countries.
Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Korea, South
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

3/19/2003; 6:07:57 AM:

More on UN Resolution 1441
I have made the point in my posts on UN Resolution 1441 that it was about inspections.  Josh Marshall has a great post hammering home that point.  The money line is a quote for US ambassador to the UN on Resolution 1441:
There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

Why hasn't this quote been discussed at length in the media?  Wouldn't it have been fun if someone brought this quote up at Dubya's press conference?

3/18/2003; 6:12:13 AM: An interesting article on Dubya's diplomacy
This article in the Guardian is about some written reports from the Spanish UN ambassador about the recent UK-US diplomacy that were leaked to the press.  I wish I could read the source material (they are in Spanish), but it is clear that US-UK diplomacy was very uncoordinated.  It is also clear that the US wasn't doing much diplomatically - it is the British UN ambassador who does all the talking to unaligned countries.  The article also casts doubts on the US claim of 8 votes.

3/17/2003; 6:18:33 AM:

Misadventures in diplomacy
It turns out that we didn't have 8 votes.  It looks like we never really got any of the uncommitted 6 on to our side.  So, we are not going to call a vote so that everyone can show their cards.  Because if we called a vote, we know that we would lose big.

Then, we had the most overhyped diplomatic meeting ever.  A "summit" where Dubya will go the last mile for peace, but it is a meeting with only his most ardent allies and the meeting was over in 90 minutes.

Now, we have given the UN 24 hours to cave or we will totally ignore them.  I saw an opinion piece recently where the pundit said that when this is over, we need to do X.  The problem is that this invasion is not like the first Gulf War or Kosovo, where we bomb the enemy, they yell "Uncle", then we stop.  We are INVADING, and will keep an occupation force in Iraq for up to 25 years.  Once we start the invasion, there is no "after this is over".

3/14/2003; 6:21:41 AM: Is the Dallas housing bubble about to pop?
I have been reading for a while that there is a housing bubble and when it pops, the economy will take another big hit. In yesterday's Dallas Morning News, there was an article about how sales of pre-owned homes fell 16% in February from the same time last year.  The number of homes listed for sale is up 17% and the average number of day son the market is up 10%.  The median home price rose 3%, but it is hard to see how home prices won't start dropping soon.

3/13/2003; 6:39:06 AM:

More magical Dubya thinking
Yesterday, CNN ran a story that the US had 8 votes on the UN and was close to getting either Chile or Mexico for the ninth vote.  In the same story, it was announced that the US was having secret negotiations with the Iraqi military about overthrowing Saddam Hussein.  (Alas, the link is gone from CNN.com)  The second story was obviously a lie - why announce secret negotaitions and threaten the lives of the people you are negotiating with?

After much thought, I came to the conclusion that the first story was also a lie.  For one thing, if you have swung a nation's vote, why announce it to the world and expose that country to public and diplomatic pressure?  That would be a terrible thing to do in particular to Pakistan, where a yes vote could topple the government.  Pakistan had announced that it was going to abstain.  Then I read that the US and the British had gotten straight exactly what the new resolution would be.  I can't see any government that didn't agree before agree to something not set in concrete.  I decide that it was just the Dubya way - claim a position of strength, negotiate from there, and the rest of the world will follow.

This morning, CNN has a story that the UN vote "might not happen".  After being at eight votes on the new proposal, the current story is "a British official said the initial reaction from the Security Council's six officially undecided countries -- Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico and Guinea -- was 'very positive.'"

Why will any country ever believe us again?

3/12/2003; 7:33:45 PM: I surprised some people at my office with these facts
Facts on Iraq from the CIA 2002 worldbook:
Exports: $15.8 billion (f.o.b., 2001 est.)
Exports - commodities: crude oil
Exports - partners: US 46.2%, Italy 12.2%, France 9.6%, Spain 8.6% (2000)
Imports: $11 billion (f.o.b., 2001 est.)
Imports - commodities: food, medicine, manufactures
Imports - partners: France 22.5%, Australia 22%, China 5.8%, Russia 5.8% (2000)

Of Iraq's top 4 recipients of their exports, 3 are for invading Iraq.

3/12/2003; 7:14:07 PM: What if we really had a liberal media?
We would have headlines Tuesday like the BBC's "Bush and Blair face diplomatic disaster" instead of "U.S. Says U.N. Could Repeat Errors of 90's" (NYT), "Britain Races To Rework Resolution" (WP) and "France, Russia Promise Veto Against War" (LAT). We would have articles pointing out , "Going to war without a new UN resolution backing military action would be illegal despite claims to the contrary made by Britain and the US. This is the near-unanimous view of international lawyers, and was supported this week by the UN secretary general." and "Resolution 1441, by which ministers have laid so much store, speaks only of 'serious consequences' if Saddam Hussein does not disarm. The phrase falls far short of an instruction to UN member states to use 'all necessary means' - the traditional UN term for armed intervention." We would have a summary of the events of March 11th that would mention the furor Rumsfeld comments caused in our strongest ally.

3/12/2003; 6:05:40 AM: Some scary questions from Monday's press briefing
"If the U.N. Security Council and the weapons inspectors maintain their present attitude or pattern, is the Bush administration committed to maintaining its present U.N. dues at the current high level?"

"As you point to other international organizations, coalitions, so forth, as a substitute for the U.N., why shouldn't that be taken as an official administration policy that the U.N. is irrelevant?"

"And going back to the 17 resolutions passed against Iraq, none of which have been enforced, it does seem now that the United Nations -- particularly the Security Council -- is impotent when it comes to taking action. And it appears it could go the way of the League of Nations. Is anybody advising the President for the United States to withdraw from the U.N. if it becomes, in his view, irrelevant?"

3/11/2003; 9:12:30 PM: Addendum on Christopher Hitchens
In the same post, Hitchens says, "Might it not be nice if France and the European Union and others issued a strong denunciation in advance of any Turkish unilateralism [in invading Kurdish Iraq]? Here, too, is a cause that a serious "peace" movement might take up."  Hitchens - if the US doesn't invade Iraq, then Turkey doesn't invade Iraq.  If you accept the US argument for pre-emptive invasions, then you have to accept Turkey's argument for invading Iraq.  Hitchens leaves it up to the peace movement to solve the inconviences of the US's policies.

3/11/2003; 7:17:56 PM: Christopher Hitchens lectures the Pope on morality
In this article in Slate.  Hitchens takes the Pope to task because he says the war against Iraq is immoral.  "One wonders what it would take for the Vatican to condemn Saddam's regime."  Hitchens then rips Jimmy Carter.  For his finale, he implies that the "Archbishop of Canterbury, many rabbis, most imams, and Bush's own 'United Methodists'....have smiled on Saddam Hussein for a quarter of a century."  It is a mind-boggling conceit to lecture so many devout people on morality. Hitchens would be a great fit in the Dubya administration.

3/11/2003; 6:45:57 AM:

The President caves and the media doesn't notice
This story from AP is about the delay in the UN Security Council vote.  Here is the opening paragraph, "President Bush's urgent phone campaign to world leaders, seeking their support for a tough deadline on Iraq, came up short Monday — forcing a delay of the Security Council's vote and opening the doors to a possible compromise to give Saddam Hussein more time."  This isn't a minor little disappointment, but yet another major diplomatic defeat.  Dubya said in his press conference, "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."  Dubya made a statement that he didn't need to make just so he could strike a macho posture, and then he couldn't back it up.

As for a possible compromise to give Saddam more time, that too would be another diplomatic defeat for Dubya.  Here is what Dubya said in his press conference about an additional deadline, "It makes no sense to allow this issue to continue on and on, in the hopes that Saddam Hussein disarms. The whole purpose of the debate is for Saddam to disarm. We gave him a chance. As a matter of fact, we gave him 12 years of chances. But, recently, we gave him a chance, starting last fall. And it said, last chance to disarm. The resolution said that."  What made no sense Thursday night is the best the Bush administration can hope for Tuesday morning.

I checked the lead stories for the NYT and the WP, and both ignore Dubya's press conference comments when discussing the latest Iraq developments.

3/11/2003; 6:15:12 AM: Gee, the Brits can have really stupid ideas, too
MaxSpeak has a post on an editorial in the Guardian by Peter Mandelson, former secretary of state for Northern Ireland. Mandelson's idea - Europe should along with the US on Iraq so that "When the immediate Iraqi crisis is behind us....Europe should seek a renewed bargain or pact with America in the exercise of its power." Otherwise, the unilateralists in the US government will ignore Europe.  Of course, if the unilateralists in the US government get their way with Iraq, they will say that the US doesn't have to strike a bargain or pact with Europe because Europe will always eventually go along with the US.  Letting bullies have their way always encourages more bullying.

3/10/2003; 6:19:20 PM:

Why does the media notice these things?
From Powell's presentation to the Security Council:
we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.

Mobile rocket launchers hiding under groves of palm trees?  I can see hiding them in caves or barns or warehouses, but palm tree groves?  Palm tree groves I have seen would have a tough time hiding a man from the air.  Somehow,  the UN inspection teams as they made helicopter flights, never spotted a mobile rocket launcher sitting in the open.  Now, Powell doesn't say what kind of rocket he is talking about, but it would have to be big in order for it to have a warhead large enough to be of concern.  The biggest rocket Iraq has is the Al Samoud 2, which are all being destroyed under the eye of the UN inspectors. You have to assume that the UN inspectors are checking for biological agents in the warheads as they are destroying. 

3/10/2003; 6:30:48 AM:

The Media is treating accusations against Iraq like accusations against Bill Clinton
Every new accusation against Bill Clinton was front page news.  Every debunking of an accusation was buried if reported at all.  When discussing a new allegation, no mention is ever made of all of the allegations that had be debunked.  Most allegations consist of assertions of wrong doing with repetition used instead of logic to back up an argument.

The same total amnesia is affecting the US media on Iraq.  A great example is the "posion factory".  In Powell's presentation to the UN, he announced a "much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network".  An al-Quida lieutenant had established a "poison and explosive training center camp....in northeastern Iraq."  There are problems with this accusation in that Northeastern Iraq is under Kurd control, not Saddam's, but no paper mentioned that point.  Then some BBC journalists visited the camp and found "nothing more sinister than small arms".  The debunking of Powell's claim went unreported in the US media.  During the President's news conference, the only evidence Dubya offered that Iraq has WMD's was "There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq."  Nobody in the US media picked up on the fact that Dubya used a debunked allegation as his only support for his main claim for war.

3/7/2003; 6:28:50 PM: Review of the President's answers to the questions at the press conference
First of, it was amazing the topics that weren't discussed:

• The economy
• Bin Laden
• Estrada

In his opening statement, Dubya said, "In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?" The big problem is that Resolution 1441 does require Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 (from paragraph 2), "Decides...to afford Iraq...a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process...." 1441 requires Iraq to accept unfettered inspections, which it has done. In Hans Blix testimony today to the UN Security Council, the only place that he cited where Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1441 was that "It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive', these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute 'immediate' cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues." So the only violation is a matter of speed with which Iraq has co-operated with the inspectors.

Q1: Are we just days away from the point of which you decide whether or not we go to war? And what harm would it do to give Saddam a final ultimatum? A two- or three-day deadline to disarm or face force?

Dubya answers the first part with, "Well, we're days away from resolving this issue at the Security Council". He responds to but doesn't answer the rest of the question with "As far as ultimatums and all the speculation about what may or may not happen, after next week, we'll just wait and see."

Dubya tells this lie, "Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties....It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists." There is no public evidence that Iraq has any significant terrorist ties.

Dubya makes this contradiction, "When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight? I think it's important for those words to have merit and weight, because I understand that in order to win the war against terror there must be a united effort to do so; we must work together to defeat terror." Dubya's administration has not followed the words of Resolution 1441 (see here). The invasion of Iraq has badly split the Security Council and NATO.

Q2: If North Korea restarts their plutonium plant, will that change your thinking about how to handle this crisis, or are you resigned to North Korea becoming a nuclear power?

It was a poor question and Dubya answers it by saying, "This is a regional issue" and talking about his talking to regional powers about North Korea (instead of doing something productive like talking to North Korea).

Q3: If all these nations, all of them our normal allies, have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think that the threat is so real, so imminent that we need to move to the brink of war now? And...Is that [a timetable of concrete steps like Canada has proposed] something that the governments should be pursuing at the U.N. right now?

Dubya fakes an answer to the first part with, "But America is not alone in this sentiment. There are a lot of countries who fully understand the threat of Saddam Hussein. A lot of countries realize that the credibility of the Security Council is at stake -- a lot of countries, like America, who hope that he would have disarmed, and a lot of countries which realize that it may require force -- may require force -- to disarm him."

Dubya did answer the second part by clearly ruling out anything like Canada's proposal.

Dubya makes this nonsensical statement, "...if he really intended to disarm, like the world has asked him to do, we would know whether he was disarming." But how would we know? The fundamental issue with Iraq is "Is it taking steps to disarm?" We say no, most of the rest of the world says yes. And our definition of what disarming is the same as the classic definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it". That is not IMHO not a good enough standard to go to war over.

Q4: Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you are waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision?...I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies."

Dubya gives no response to the first part. Dubya's response to the second part with, "I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the President. I remember the protests against trade....But that didn't change my opinion about trade. As a matter of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out."

Dubya's response is disjointed and rambling. He begins with the disjointed, "Well, first, I -- I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That society -- free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq." Then he talks about not liking war a few times, then he makes an interesting slip of the tongue, "if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join him -- join us in disarming him." Then he talks about anxiety, not liking war, the loved ones of the troops, blah, blah, blah

Q5: How would...you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal?...could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?

He responds to the first part by saying, "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do....I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that."

He doesn't respond to the second part with, "The price of doing nothing exceeds the price of taking action, if we have to....The price of the attacks on America, the cost of the attacks on America on September the 11th were enormous. They were significant. And I am not willing to take that chance again, John."

To me, saying that the cost of attacking Iraq is much less than the cost of 9/11 implies that Saddam had something to do with September 11th. There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. His answer implies a huge lie - that if we don't take out Saddam, we know he will launch a terrorist attack against the US.

Q6: May I ask, what went wrong that so many governments and people around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power?

Dubya responds with "there was a lot of doubt as to whether or not we were even going to get any votes" back before Resolution 1441, but "the vote came out 15 to nothing" for Resolution 1441 and "I think you'll see when it's all said and done, if we have to use force, a lot of nations will be with us."

Dubya then goes into a long ramble, "France and Germany expressed their opinions....Our transatlantic relationships are very important....They said Saddam Hussein has one last chance of disarming.....He's a master at deception....Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took....One of the things we love in America is freedom....I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it....I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world....Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive change....Freedom is at stake, as well, and I take that very seriously."

In that ramble, Dubya repeats his earlier nonsensical logic, "He has no intention of disarming -- otherwise, we would have known."

Q7: If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?

Dubya somewhat responds with, "And if we go to war, there will be a regime change"

Q8: ...there are a lot of people in this country -- as much as half, by polling standards -- who agree that he should be disarmed, who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.

Dubya responds to question of evidence with, "...the American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."

Dubya then follows up with a total lie, "There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq." After Colin Powell claimed that there was a chemical weapons plant in Iraq (in a portion of Iraq not under Saddam's control), journalists went there and found no evidence of the manufacturer of chemical weapons.

Dubya made an interesting statement just before his lie, "By the way, he declared he didn't have any -- 1441 insisted that he have a complete declaration of his weapons; he said he didn't have any weapons." Dubya says as an aside that Saddam states that Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. But Dubya only evidence to refute to Saddam's claim (which totally invalidates our logic for invading) is a lie.

Q9: As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

Dubya anwsers the question with, "yes, we'll call for a vote"

Q10: Mr. President, are you worried that the United States might be viewed as defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific and explicit authorization from the U.N.?

Dubya responds with the whacko logic, "...hard to say the United States is defiant about the United Nations, when I was the person that took the issue to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002. We've been working with the United Nations. We've been working through the United Nations." We are violating the UN charter, but the fact that we talked about doing so first makes the violation acceptable?

Q11: Even though our military can certainly prevail without a northern front, isn't Turkey making it at least slightly more challenging for us, and therefore, at least slightly more likely that American lives will be lost? And if they don't reverse course, would you stop backing their entry into the European Union? A really stupid question - we can't stop their entry into the EU. Dubya answers, "I support Turkey going into the E.U."

Q12: Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you?

Dubya gives an interesting answer, "My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength. If we were to commit our troops -- if we were to commit our troops -- I would pray for their safety, and I would pray for the safety of innocent Iraqi lives, as well. One thing that's really great about our country, April, is there are thousands of people who pray for me that I'll never see and be able to thank. But it's a humbling experience to think that people I will never have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And for that I'm grateful. That's -- it's been -- it's been a comforting feeling to know that is true. I pray for peace, April. I pray for peace." Dubya's faith doesn't guide him. He doesn't try to use his faith as a rationale for his actions. Instead, his faith is a comfort that the decision that he has made is the right one and prayer is his way of increasing the chances that things will work out. It is much like someone who uses their life savings to buy lotto tickets and then prays for the winning number.

Q13: As you know, not everyone shares your optimistic vision of how this might play out. Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong and they might be right in thinking that this could lead to more terrorism, more anti-American sentiment, more instability in the Middle East?

First, Dubya makes an incorrect statement, "it's hard to envision more terror on America than September the 11th, 2001." If the attack on Iraq provokes a steady stream of terrorist attacks, that would be much worse than 9/11. Then Dubya once again implies that taking out Saddam will somehow damage Al-Qaeda. It is amazing to me how much this man lies to the American public in prime time and no one in the media calls him out on it.

Q14: Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?

Dubya answers, "We will give people a chance to leave."

Q15: When it comes to the financial costs of the war, sir, it would seem that the administration, surely, has costed out various scenarios. If that's the case, why not present some of them to the American people so they know what to expect, sir?

Dubya first totally dodges the question by saying they will present the cost once the war has started. Then Dubya again goes on about the cost of 9/11, seeming to imply again that if we don't take out Saddam, then he will launch a terrorist attack against us.

Q16: If I can follow on Steve's question, on North Korea. Do you believe it is essential for the security of the United States and its allies that North Korea be prevented from developing nuclear weapons? And are you in any way growing frustrated with the pace of the diplomacy there?

Dubya says that he is concerned about North Korea building nukes and states "the IAEA asked that the Security Council take up the North Korean issue."

An interesting contradiction - if we are invading Iraq because the Security Council apparently won't back up their words, how will taking the North Korean situation to the Security Council help?

Q17: What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and the daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them that you will not lead this country down a similar path in Iraq?

Dubya answers with, "Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change."

But hold it! Didn't Dubya say earlier that "I'm convinced that a liberated Iraq will be -- will be important for that troubled part of the world. The Iraqi people are plenty capable of governing themselves. Iraq is a sophisticated society. Iraq's got money. Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation. Iraq will serve as a catalyst for change, positive change. So there's a lot more at stake than just American security, and the security of people close by Saddam Hussein. Freedom is at stake, as well, and I take that very seriously." Doesn't that imply that our mission is to establish a democratic government where the different ethnic races live in harmony?

Q18: In the coming days, the American people are going to hear a lot of debate about this British proposal of a possible deadline being added to the resolution, or not. ...can you share for the American public what you view as the pros and cons associated with that proposal?

Dubya makes it clear that he is not interested in any deadlines and that we are going in.

Conclusion
Dubya totally misstates the UN Resolution that he is using to justify invading Iraq, offers as evidence that Iraq has WMD's a blantant lie, makes numerous false implications, grossly overstates our support on the Iraq issue and never explains, despite repeated questions, why he has reached such a different conclusion that most of all our allies. But the media will totally pass over the lies and evasions and repeat the spin points word for word.

3/7/2003; 6:19:43 AM: An analogy I would like to offer on the current Iraq situation
Let's say this is some guy, John Doe, who was caught manufacturing addictive drugs.  The DEA came in and destroyed his lab and destroyed the drugs on hand.  However, John Doe's computer records indicate that had had made more drugs than were destroyed.  John Doe says he has no more drugs.  The government puts John Doe under survillance, but the missing drugs never appear.  A new president is elected, so the DEA decides to get tough with John Doe - if he doesn't turn over the missing drugs, the DEA is going to burn down his house and shoot him.  At this point, the drugs would be 12 years old and of question potency.  Under threat, John Doe let's the DEA into his house, let's drug-sniffing dogs search his house, let's 24-hour TV monitors be put up in his house.  The DEA's total failure to find any sign of drugs doesn't cause any doubt in the DEA.  All co-operation given by John Doe is dismissed by the DEA as a "distraction" or "too little, too late".  The only thing keeping the DEA from burning down the house and killing John Doe is complaints by other citizens, who don't care for John Doe but feel the government is wildly overreaching.  At the same time, the next door neighbor and some other people in the neighborhood are acting suscipiously like they are building a lab for manufacturing addictive drugs.  Because there is no solid evidence, the only way the DEA can inspect their premises is if the suspected drug makers volunarily let them in.  After the way the DEA has treated John Doe, do you think any of them will let the DEA in?  After the way the US has treated Iraq, do you think Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc. will let UN inspectors into their countries? 

3/6/2003; 8:58:31 PM: Just when I thought the media deference to Dubya couldn't get any worse
...along comes this AP story on Yahoo about Dubya's next press conference.  For some reason, the writer passed along the White House spin as to why there has been so few press conferences - "Bush is known to think White House news conferences are too formal, and that they include too much preening by reporters. But Fleischer said despite those qualms, he believes it's 'important to communicate with the American people.'"  Gag me.  So it is the fault of reporters that the President has had so few press conferences.  Oh, the joys of the Responsibility Era.  I guess the reporters never preened during the Clinton Administration.  I am elated that the President is willing to suffer such indiginanties and take time out of his busy job of scaring the heck out of the rest of the world in order to communicate to the people who he is supposed to be serving. 

3/6/2003; 8:53:21 PM: A WP analysis that misses a lot
This analysis in the Washington Post is about how the Bush administration became so isolated from the rest of the world on Iraq.  It somehow leaves out the many lies the Bush administration has told on Iraq.  For example, the article says, "Positions were so hardened by early last month that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's extensive presentation of Iraqi misdeeds to the Security Council failed to sway many minds."  The article should have discussed how a British report referenced by Powell in his presentation was later found to be mainly consisting of information plagurized from an out-of-date graduate thesis.  The article should have discussed how a camp in Northern Iraq that Powell said was manufacturing chemical weapons, when visited by the press, turned out to not have any chemical weapons or even electricity.  The article should have discussed how Powell announced that Bin Laden's latest tape would show that there is a connection between Bin Laden and Saddam, when the tape actually showed Bin Laden hates Saddam, but hates the US more.  The US case against Saddam has come down to "take our word that he is lying" and our word has no value.

3/6/2003; 6:31:13 PM:

Samuel Freedman writes a lu-lu
Samuel Freedman writes a lu-lu in the USA Today, "War protesters fail integrity test".  Why does the peace movement fail the integrity test?  "It refuses to face up to the likely result of its own pacifism. Not invading Iraq would neuter the U.N. just as surely as American unilateralism would. Not invading Iraq would allow Saddam to build his arsenals. Not invading Iraq would leave him free to murder his own people, if not by poison-gassing them, then by mounting some suicidal campaign like his war against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands on each side."  Taking the claims one by one:
Not invading Iraq would neuter the U.N. just as surely as American unilateralism would
The UN is about preventing war.  How can stopping a unilateral, pre-emptive war neuter the UN?  You could say that by not enforcing the resolutions passed by the Security Council will neuter the UN, but the there are lots of resolutions passed by the Security Council that have not been enforced.  Until some physical evidence of WMD's are found, it is not clear that Iraq is in violation of the Security Council's resolution against having WMD's.

Not invading Iraq would allow Saddam to build his arsenals
To support this argument, Freedman writes about how Saddam had a free hand between late 1998 and 2002.  And during that time, Saddam did what?  Did he build any nukes?  Did he build any chemical or biological weapons?  Did he attack any country?  The only time Saddam built his arsenal was when the US considered him an ally and we helped him to build his arsenal of WMD's.  It seems relatively easy to keep us from re-arming him.

Not invading Iraq would leave him free to murder his own people, if not by poison-gassing them, then by mounting some suicidal campaign like his war against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands on each side
We are going to kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, force millions more from their homes, all to prevent the possibility that Saddam could kill some of his people.  That makes a ton of sense.

What Freedman doesn't address
Saddam is not the number one threat to the world.  He is not the number one threat to the United States.  He is just one of many bad dictators.  Let's address the top threats to the US - North Korea and Al-Qaeda.  Let's keep our promise to rebuild Afghanistan before we start destroying another country.  All we have down so far by provoking a showdown with a country that apparently has no WMD's is to encourage all countries who fear the US to get their WMD's before the US confronts them.  But not addressing those issues, Freedman fails the integrity test.

3/6/2003; 6:10:25 AM:

What the Democrats should do
The Democrats should declare victory and say it is time to bring the troops home.  Say that it has been great how the threat of force has gotten inspectors into Itaq and it has been great how the threat of force has gotten Saddam to destroy his missles.  But now that inspections has established that there is little chance that Saddam has WMD's, it is time to pass UN resolutions that will keep him from ever acquiring WMD's again, get Saddam's agreement to those resolutions, then bring the troops home.

If the Democrats continue to support Dubya on the invasion of Iraq, they are in a no-win situation.  If it goes well, Dubya is a big hero and wins re-election.  If it goes poorly, Dubya can say that the Democrats are in no position to criticize him as they thought it was a good idea too.  The Democrats can use the results of the weapon inspections to justify a change in position, and if they have any brains, they will do so.

3/5/2003; 8:47:41 PM:

The most obvious fact about Iraq that everyone is ignoring
I haven't blogged in a long time for a variety of reasons, but the terrible media coverage in the US is driving me back to it.  Reading Josh Marshall's latest column, one fact stands out to me.  Now, Josh is a liberal who long ago painfully came to the conclusion that Saddam needs to go.  I can accept that with the information available, he reached what he feels is the best conclusion.  But holding on to the conclusion today makes little sense to me because the facts have changed.  Before inspections, we had excellent reasons to suspect that Iraq had WMD's.  Now, inspectors have searched Iraq for months now with the best leads that the best intelligence agencies in the world can provide, and they have found nothing, nada, zip to indicate that Iraq has WMD's.  Iraq's only method of delivering WMD's over a long distance is currently being destroyed.  That change of the "facts on the ground" has gone totally unnoticed by the US media.

© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 7/30/2003; 6:46:24 AM.