"The
Great Terror"
"I suggested that, if this was indeed the problem, the solution was ready at hand. Simply support the U.S. position against the Iraqi or Russian or French one and - presto - the U.S. position would no longer be 'unilateral.'" (Christopher Hitchens)
News and commentary on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Part 1: 2001/06/18 - 2002/06/27
Part 2: 2001/07/05 - 2002/08/30
Part 3: 2002/09/02 - 2002/09/30
Part 4: 2002/10/01 - 2002/10/30
Part 5: 2002/11/01 - 2002/11/30
Part 6: 2002/12/01 - 2002/12/31
Part 7: 2003/01/01 - 2003/01/31December 2002
Monday, December 23, 2002 - Tuesday, December 31, 2002
"U.S. suspects Iraq hides scientists" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/12/31)
"U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup" (Michael Dobbs, The Washington Post, 2002/12/30)
"Back to Iraq as a human shield" (Ken Nichols O'Keefe, The Observer, 2002/12/29)
"U.S. Orders Thousands of Troops to Gulf" (John J. Lumpkin, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/28)
"Iraqi scientist gives 'key information'" (BBC News, 2002/12/27)
"Iraq's Thwarted Ambitions Litter an Old Nuclear Plant" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/12/27)
"Iraq and the Arabs' Future" (Fouad Ajami, Foreign Affairs, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"Exit Hussein" (Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 2002/12/25)
"War And the Fickle Left" (Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, 2002/12/24)
"Iraqi jets shoot down US drone" (BBC News, 2002/12/23)
"Report: Saddam planned to use biological weapons
against Israel" (Haim Shadmi and Amnon Barzilai, Haaretz, 2002/12/23)Monday, December 16, 2002 - Sunday, December 22, 2002
"The horrors of Saddam's 'sadist' son" (Tom Farrey, ESPN.com, 2002/12/22)
"Iraq's Christians" (Jonathan Eric Lewis, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/12/22)
"Declaration Lists Companies That Sold Chemicals to Iraq" (Philip Shenon, The New York Times, 2002/12/21)
"U.S. Is to Release Spy Data on Iraq to Aid Inspectors" (David E. Sanger and Julia Preston, The New York Times, 2002/12/21)
"US and Iraq prepare for decision on war in late January" (Tim Reid, The Times, 2002/12/20)
"Missing: four tons of nerve gas, 8.5 tons of anthrax, and assorted nuclear bomb parts" (David Usborne and Rupert Cornwell, The Independent, 2002/12/20)
"al Qaida Statement Regarding US War with Iraq" (haganah b'internet, 2002/12/19)
"U.N.'s Blix says Iraqi arms declaration has gaps" (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, 2002/12/19)
"Saddam Tricks Penn Pal" (Bill Hoffmann, New York Post, 2002/12/18)
"Bush to Declare Iraq in Violation of U.N." (AP/ABC News, 2002/12/18)
"Multilateralism and Unilateralism" (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, 2002/12/17)
"Iraqi Report Could Prove Damaging to Germany" (Deutsche Welle, 2002/12/17)
"Sean Penn condemns US threats against Iraq" (Iraq Daily, 2002/12/16)
"UN gives Saddam deadline to name weapons scientists" (James Bone and New York and Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/12/16)Monday, December 9, 2002 - Sunday, December 15, 2002
"Pentagon: No Comment on Report of Troops in N.Iraq" (Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/15)
"Hussein's Obsession: An Empire of Mosques" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/12/15)
"Hollywood goes to war" (Diana West, The Washington Times, 2002/12/13)
"The link" (Andrew Sullivan, The Washington Times, 2002/12/13)
"This post of mine..." (Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit, 2002/12/12)
"The Capital Makes Up Its Mind" (Timothy Garton Ash, The New York Times, 2002/12/12)
"U.S. Suspects Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From Iraqis" (Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, 2002/12/12)
"Iraqi regime hiding scientists" (David Wastell, The Washington Times, 2002/12/11)
"Nukes, 'Overwhelming Force' for Germ or Bio Attackers" (AP/FOX News, 2002/12/11)
"Iraq charges US with "banditry unparalleled" over arms declaration move" (AFP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/11)
"Celebrities urge Bush to avoid Iraq war" (UPI, 2002/12/10)
"Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war" (BBC News, 2002/12/10)
"A dossier as empty as a factory when the UN calls" (Max Boot, The Times, 2002/12/10)
"Iraq Papers Hint at Past Arms Efforts" (Dafna Linzer, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/10)
"Saddam's Lawyers" (Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post, 2002/12/09)
"Saddam and al Qaeda" (David Rose, The Evening Standard, 2002/12/09)
"Iraq admits it's on the brink of creating nukes" (Vincent Morris, New York Post, 2002/12/09)Sunday, December 1, 2002 - Sunday, December 8, 2002
"The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq" (George Packer, The New York Times Magazine, 2002/12/08)
"The Trouble With Amnesty" (The Wall Street Journal, 2002/12/08)
"Buildup Leaves U.S. Military Nearly Set to Start Attack" (Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, 2002/12/08)
"Iraq hands over weapons dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/07)
"U.S. Is Pressuring Inspectors in Iraq to Aid Defections" (Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, 2002/12/06)
"U.S. has 'solid' arms proof" (Bill Sammon, The Washington Times, 2002/12/06)
"Canadians go to Baghdad as 'human shields'" (CBC News, 2002/12/05)
"U.S. set to cite Iraq for breach" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/12/05)
"Iraqi VP Says U.N. Inspectors U.S., Israeli Spies" (Haitham Haddadin, Reuters, 2002/12/05)
"Iraq Declaration Will Not Admit to Banned Weapons" (Nadim Ladki, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/04)
"Countdown to Trigger Day" (Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 2002/12/04)
"Saddam's useful idiots pollute the British Left" (Michael Gove, The Times, 2002/12/03)
"The mother of all package tours" (Johann Hari, The Guardian, 2002/12/03)
"Bush warns Saddam over inspections" (BBC News, 2002/12/02)
"UK unveils Iraq 'torture' dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/02)
"U.S. Is Preparing Base in Gulf State to Run Iraq War" (Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, 2002/12/01)
"U.S. suspects Iraq hides scientists" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/12/31)
"Iraq is hiding at least two weapons scientists in Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces, U.S. intelligence officials have told The Washington Times. The intelligence officials also said there are signs that Iraq's military forces recently moved chemical and biological weapons materials to underground storage areas unknown to arms inspectors from the United Nations. ... The Iraqis are hiding the scientists apparently to prevent the arms inspectors from questioning them, the officials said.
The two scientists were not identified by name. The officials said one is believed to be involved in Iraq's covert nuclear arms program and that the second is a specialist in chemical and biological weapons.""U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup" (Michael Dobbs, The Washington Post, 2002/12/30)
"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. ...
A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.""Back to Iraq as a human shield" (Ken Nichols O'Keefe, The Observer, 2002/12/29)
O'Keefe is a Gulf War vet who's returning to Iraq as a human shield. As Tim Blair comments - "Good thinking, chief. You disagree with your taxes paying for US nuclear weapons, but think Iraq should be allowed to have them. That path surely will lead peace and love.":
"It is we who are privileged to live in so-called "democracies" and so we are collectively guilty for what we allow to be done in our name, to both to the civilian population of Iraq and to others around the world. Ignorance is no defence. The existence of other tyrants, worse or not, is no defence. ... In 1999 I renounced my US citizenship in shame and disgust having arrived at the logical, albeit belated, conclusion that my government was not worthy of my funding - through taxes - and certainly not my allegiance. Paying for roads and schools is one thing, paying for "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to the point of insanity and nurturing global oppression is another thing all together. No moral being can be compelled to fund war, death and murder. ... A leader of a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons – and who has declared his right to use them - is ready to pulverize one of the poorest nations on the planet on the grounds that they may be planning to develop similar weapons themselves.""U.S. Orders Thousands of Troops to Gulf" (John J. Lumpkin, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/28)
"The Pentagon has ordered a major military force to the Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible war with Iraq. Thousands of troops, two aircraft carrier battle groups and scores of combat aircraft have received orders since Christmas to ready themselves to head to the region in January and February, defense officials said Friday. Military personnel will go to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain, among other locations. The Bush administration waited until after the holiday to issue the orders, which alert units across the United States and possibly overseas to prepare for deployment to the Persian Gulf, officials said. Officials said tens of thousands of military personnel will receive orders to go to the region, but a precise figure was unavailable.""Iraqi scientist gives 'key information'" (BBC News, 2002/12/27)
"UN weapons inspectors have said a key Iraqi scientist gave them details of a military programme that could be a "possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear programme". ... In his daily report on inspections, Mr Ueki said that the scientist "provided technical details of a military programme". "This programme has attracted considerable attention as a possible prelude to a clandestine nuclear programme," he said. "The answers will be of great use in completing the IAEA assessment." The scientist was not identified by the inspectors, but the Iraqi Foreign Ministry named him as Dr Kazem Jamil, who worked at the al-Raya plant that produced aluminium for use in the manufacture short-range rockets.""Iraq's Thwarted Ambitions Litter an Old Nuclear Plant" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/12/27)
A report from Tuwaitha, Iraq: "This was Mr. Hussein's Los Alamos, the site where he hoped to build Iraq's, and the Arab world's, first nuclear weapon. Behind the berm, deep in underground bunkers, the Iraqis have now admitted, scientists came close, in the months before the Persian Gulf war in 1991, to building at least one atomic bomb the size of the one used on Nagasaki in 1945. ... At these sites - in their scale, in the impenetrable secrecy that enveloped them in the past, in their lethal sophistication - there is a story of Shakespearean proportions, for what it reveals of the scope of Mr. Hussein's goals. It was in places like Tuwaitha that he aimed to rewrite the political map of the Middle East, by equipping Iraq with weapons available to no other Arab state; by confronting American power; and ultimately - a goal avowed countless times in his 23-year rule - by leading Arab armies to obliterate the state of Israel.""Iraq and the Arabs' Future" (Fouad Ajami, Foreign Affairs, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"For American power, there are two ways in the Arab world. One is restraint, pessimistic about the possibility of changing that stubborn world, reticent about the uses of American power. In this vision of things, the United States would either spare the Iraqi dictator or wage a war with limited political goals for Iraq and for the region as a whole. The other choice, more ambitious, would envisage a more profound American role in Arab political life: the spearheading of a reformist project that seeks to modernize and transform the Arab landscape. Iraq would be the starting point, and beyond Iraq lies an Arab political and economic tradition and a culture whose agonies and failures have been on cruel display. ...
The Arab world could whittle down, even devour, an American victory. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, political landscape. It may reject the message of reform by dwelling on the sins of the American messenger. There are endless escapes available to that Arab world. It can call up the fury of the Israeli-Palestinian violence and use it as an alibi for yet more self-pity and rage. It can shout down its own would-be reformers, write them off as accomplices of a foreign assault. It can throw up its defenses and wait for the United States to weary of its expedition. It is with sobering caution, then, that a war will have to be waged. But it should be recognized that the Rubicon has been crossed.""Exit Hussein" (Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 2002/12/25)
"We have come from a position of nearly absolute failure. Over the course of a deleterious decade, the structure of containment erected by the United States and the United Nations at the end of the war against Iraq in 1991 had collapsed, utterly. ... And where are we now? We are in a position of triumph, and potentially much greater triumph. A few months ago, all was still in tatters. Hussein still defied with impunity, still ruled unchallenged over his torture state, still schemed to advance his dreams of himself as the atomic Saladin. The United Nations still went to work every day, conspicuously (not to mention purposely) failing at its charter mission. Everything was still a disaster and still in train for greater disaster. The will of one man, George W. Bush, changed all this. ...
Now, for the first time since 1998, the inspectors are back in Iraq - and they are back in with a determination and a power they never had before. Now, Hussein backs down, and down, and plays for whatever time he can get. Now, he is so desperate that he is forced to empty his prisons and to begin to free his captive people. Now, the United States is backed in its actions by a United Nations that is beginning to see, as in a sort of miracle, that it actually can be a force for peace and law in the world." (Note: Compare Kelly's moral clarity with Rushdie's latest relapse to moral equivalence in "Getting Into Gang War" (Salman Rushdie, The Washington Post, 2002/12/25): "The truth looks more confused, more amorally Scorsesean. Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but the present U.S. administration's assaults on fundamental freedoms call into question its right to be called freedom lovers.")"War And the Fickle Left" (Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, 2002/12/24)
Kagan points out Michael Walzer's "illogical about-face" on Iraq, comparing his present "No Strikes"-stance with his views in an article from 1998: "'When a state like Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and is known to have used them in the past, the refusal of a U.N. majority to act forcefully isn't a good reason for ruling out the use of force by any member state that can use it effectively.' In fact, Walzer concluded, "if we are not ready, sometimes, to act unilaterally, we are not ready for real life in international society." ...
Because no international authority holds a monopoly of power, Walzer argued, nations cannot entrust their fate to international institutions or to international law. No nation can allow questions affecting its vital interests to be decided by a majority vote in the U.N. Security Council, because the U.N. Security Council cannot protect that nation in the event the majority makes a mistake and something "absolutely awful" happens. According to Walzer, American unilateral action was justified in some cases because "absolutely awful things happen all the time in international society, and anyone who can stop them or prevent them surely has a right, perhaps a duty, to do so." ...
Walzer's illogical about-face is embarrassing but, sadly, not unique. Yesterday's liberal interventionists, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti, are today's liberal abstentionists. What changed? Just the man in the White House. Intellectual consistency, even for great thinkers, is no match for partisan passions." (See also: "The Hard Questions: Lone Ranger" (Michael Walzer, The New Republic, 1998/04/27) and "No Strikes" (Michael Walzer, The New Republic, 2002/09/22))"Iraqi jets shoot down US drone" (BBC News, 2002/12/23)
"Iraqi fighter planes have shot down a US unmanned surveillance drone over southern Iraq. A senior official with US Central Command, quoted by the Associated Press, said the Predator drone was on a reconnaissance mission when the Iraqi jets infiltrated the southern no-fly zone and shot it down. The drone's controllers then lost contact with it, the official said. The Iraqi military confirmed the plane was shot down at 1535 (1235GMT) on Monday, saying the drone had breached Iraqi airspace. "With God's help, and with the will of the men of our heroic air defence forces and brave sky eagles, it was shot down in a delicate and planned operation," the Iraqi statement said.""Report: Saddam planned to use biological weapons
against Israel" (Haim Shadmi and Amnon Barzilai, Haaretz, 2002/12/23)
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had a secret plan to use biological weapons against Israel in the first stage of the 1991 Gulf War, but was unable to carry the plan out, according to a secret CIA document released for publication, Israel Radio reported Monday. The 1992 CIA dispatch was made public over the weekend by the National Security Archive, a local research organization. The document says that Iraq sent three MiG-21 planes to bomb Israeli targets with regular bombs to check whether they were able to penetrate the Israeli air defense system. At the second stage, three more MiGs armed with conventional weaponry were to be sent to Israel as a diversion, together with a Sukhoi airplane armed with biological weapons. But the operation failed during the first stage when the three MiGs were downed over the Persian Gulf a short time after takeoff.""The horrors of Saddam's 'sadist' son" (Tom Farrey, ESPN.com, 2002/12/22)
"In the history of the world, an expanse that covers Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler and other despots both past and present, there is no shortage of absolute rulers whose human rights records compare with that of today's designated pariah, Saddam Hussein.
There may never have been a sports official, though, as brutal as his son, Uday.
As president of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee, Uday allegedly tortures athletes for losing games. He sticks them in prison for days or months at a time. Has them beaten with iron bars. Caned on the soles of their feet. Chained to walls and left to stay in contorted positions for days. Dragged on pavement until their backs are bloody, then dunked in sewage to ensure the wounds become infected. If Uday stops by a player's jail cell, he might urinate on his bowed, shaven head. Just to humiliate him." (Note: The article is part of ESPN.com's investigation "Blood on the Rings". See also "'What did we do wrong? Nobody knows but Uday'" (Sharar Haydar, ESPN.com, 2002/12/22): "Uday himself liked to play mind games with us. Twice during my career - in 1988 when with the junior national team and again in 1990 before a game against our rival Iran - he threatened to blow up the plane on our return flight if we did not win. Turns out nothing happened, but we could never be sure when dealing with Uday. Sometimes he would keep us four hours after a game, letting us think we were going to be punished, then at midnight tell us, 'No, go home now. But I won't forget. I will watch you next game.'")"Iraq's Christians" (Jonathan Eric Lewis, The Wall Street Journal, 2002/12/22)
"With the aim of attracting support from Muslim states, Saddam Hussein has sought to portray himself as a defender of Islam against an imperialist West. To that end, he has abandoned longstanding secularist policies and stoked anti-Christian sentiment within Iraq - not to mention supported Hamas in its war on Israel. As a showdown looms with the U.S., no group within Iraq has been more negatively affected than the Assyrians, Iraq's indigenous Christians, who are likely to be pivotal in any long-term U.S. plan for the region. ... Saddam's Baath Party, which came to power in 1968 as an Arab nationalist movement with ideological roots in European fascism, officially denies the existence of the Assyrians as a separate ethnic group and has implemented numerous policies in order to both ethnically cleanse the Assyrians from Iraq and to erase their identity as a distinct people. ... America now has a golden opportunity to safeguard the rights of one of the Near East's most persecuted peoples, and to create a new reality that could redress various 20th-century injustices that have been perpetrated against them.""Declaration Lists Companies That Sold Chemicals to Iraq" (Philip Shenon, The New York Times, 2002/12/21)
"The 12,000-page weapons declaration that Iraq delivered to the United Nations on Dec. 7 details the history of its chemical weapons program before the 1991 gulf war, listing dozens of foreign companies that provided most of the chemicals and equipment needed for the program. ... But The New York Times was able to confirm the identity of most of the companies on the latest Iraqi list after obtaining a copy of Iraq's last chemical weapons declaration. That list was turned over by Iraq to the United Nations in 1996, and officials confirmed that Iraq's new declaration included the same companies. ... Of the 31 companies named in 1996, most are European, including 14 from Germany, 3 each from the Netherlands and Switzerland and 2 each from France and Austria.""U.S. Is to Release Spy Data on Iraq to Aid Inspectors" (David E. Sanger and Julia Preston, The New York Times, 2002/12/21)
"Administration officials said today that they would give United Nations inspectors new intelligence, gathered chiefly by spy satellites, in the hope that it would lead them to Iraqi chemical and biological stockpiles. The new information may be delivered to the United Nations as early as this weekend, they said. The announcement that the data would be shared, in response to a demand made repeatedly by United Nations weapons inspectors, came as the White House said President Bush was postponing his weeklong trip to Africa in mid-January, in part to be close to home in case decisions on Iraq had to be made.""US and Iraq prepare for decision on war in late January" (Tim Reid, The Times, 2002/12/20)
"As America and Iraq stepped up their preparations for war yesterday, White House officials said that President Bush would decide in the last week in January whether to send the US military into action. The Pentagon plans to double the number of US troops in the Gulf next month, defence officials confirmed. More than 50,000 will flow into the region from early in the new year. The huge military deployment, expected to be authorised next week by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, is the clearest possible signal that the decision to attack Iraq has all but been made by Mr Bush. Aides say, however, that he will not make a final decision until the last week in January, when the inspections process comes to a head. On January 27 Hans Blix, the UN’s chief weapons inspector, is scheduled to make his first substantive report to the Security Council on Iraq’s weapons declaration and its co-operation with inspectors. By then the White House intends to have the necessary US and allied troops in place for a military campaign beginning in early February.""Missing: four tons of nerve gas, 8.5 tons of anthrax, and assorted nuclear bomb parts" (David Usborne and Rupert Cornwell, The Independent, 2002/12/20)
"The United States pushed the world closer to armed conflict last night when Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, asserted that Iraq's declaration on its weapons capacities "totally failed" to meet the conditions laid down by the United Nations. The document, he said, was nothing more than "a catalogue of flagrant omissions and recycled information." Speaking after the two senior UN weapons inspectors had told the Security Council there were serious "holes" in the declaration, General Powell said the shortcomings constituted a "material breach" of Baghdad's obligations – two words that have been treated as a coded trigger for war." (See also: "Press Conference on Iraq Declaration" (U.S. Department of State, 2002/12/19))"al Qaida Statement Regarding US War with Iraq" (haganah b'internet, 2002/12/19)
A translation of an al Qaida's statement regarding an upcoming war between the United States and Iraq. Not surprisingly, it's viewed as part of a global conspiracy aiming at world domination: "The Protestant US and its allies (Jews, and English first, then Catholics like France and Italy) is working towards world domination. They want to be the sole benefactor of the world's riches in matter and people. ... The author even claims that the Muslims are just the first - on the way are the Catholics, and then the Pagans - India, China, Japan, North Korea and several African countries. Stresses that the cause for the war is religious. ...
In going to war the US wants to achieve the following goals:
a. The foundation of a "Big Israel", ensuring its military dominance over all its neighbors, and making it the policeman of the middle east, working on behalf of the American interests.
b. The destruction of the Arab military force, and taking away all its different types of weapons to ensure the Jewish existence in the area for the religious purposes mentioned above (Armageddon etc. - TRANS.)
c. Stopping the Arab growth of population in the area, by having millions of them killed trying to prevent the Jewish spread in the area. ...
. The de-militarization of the rest of the world so they'll bow to the Christian-Jewish way and become slaves under white man domination.""U.N.'s Blix says Iraqi arms declaration has gaps" (Evelyn Leopold, Reuters, 2002/12/19)
"The United Nations chief weapons inspector said Iraq's arms declaration contained little new information as he prepared on Thursday to give his first verdict on the dossier. ... He said the dossier contained little that had not been declared by Baghdad before 1998, when U.N. arms experts were last in Iraq. "There is a good bit of information about non-arms related activities," he said. "Not much information about the weapons...The absence of supporting evidence is what we are talking about, mainly." But diplomats said Blix was not expected to characterise the document as a violation, as Washington appeared set to do.""Saddam Tricks Penn Pal" (Bill Hoffmann, New York Post, 2002/12/18)
A case study from Useful Idiocy for Dummies: "Sean Penn, just back from his three-day "fact finding" trip to Iraq, turned on his new pals in Saddam Hussein's government - claiming they've transformed him into a weapon of mass propaganda. ... Penn's flack howled in protest, claiming her boss was the victim of terrorist misquotes. "Oh, please! I don't know where those statements are being fabricated from," said spokeswoman Mara Buxbaum. 'This is specifically propaganda. It's a twisted interpretation of what he said. They are twisting his words.'" (See also: "Sean Penn condemns US threats against Iraq" (Iraq Daily, 2002/12/16))"Bush to Declare Iraq in Violation of U.N." (AP/ABC News, 2002/12/18)
"President Bush's advisers are recommending that he declare Iraq in violation of a U.N. resolution on disarmament, administration officials said Tuesday night, but they do not consider the offense an immediate cause for war. Bush will be briefed as early as Wednesday on the available options in response to Saddam Hussein's 12,000-page declaration of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The document, which one official involved in the talks called "an incredible joke," was required under the U.S.-backed United Nations resolution. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's national security team has concluded that the declaration is full of holes, including its failure to explain what happened to Saddam's chemical and biological weapons program after 1998, and the denial of any nuclear weapons programs inside Iraq.""Multilateralism and Unilateralism" (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, 2002/12/17)
"Tautology lurks here. In October, I went to speak at a meeting at the Labor Party conference in Blackpool, England. Tony Blair had carried the day in the plenary session, but many delegates were muttering darkly about the "unilateral" or "go-it-alone" attitude of the United States. I suggested that, if this was indeed the problem, the solution was ready at hand. Simply support the U.S. position against the Iraqi or Russian or French one and - presto - the U.S. position would no longer be "unilateral." I was promptly made aware of what I already knew - that the true objection to the policy has little to do with its "unilateral" character. ... Thus, an accusation of "unilateral" behavior can be made to stick, almost by axiom, by any power that withholds consent. When that consent is eventually given, the prize of "multilateralism" has been attained, again by definition. But the charge of acting "unilaterally" may not, for some reason, be laid against (say) France. ... Yet the Iraqi delegation, for some reason, has been flagrantly in breach of a number of overwhelmingly passed resolutions for more than a decade. And yet one never seems to read any well-reasoned denunciation of this "unilateralist" attitude on the part of Baghdad. Add another clause to the regime-change manifesto: Intervention will put an end to Saddam Hussein's unilateralism.""Iraqi Report Could Prove Damaging to Germany" (Deutsche Welle, 2002/12/17)
"On Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung reported that aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons programs, submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly embarrassing for Germany. The newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the top-secret dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains the names of 80 German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said to have helped Iraq develop its weapons program. The most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the report names it as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq. German firms are supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries who have been exporting to Iraq. ... German arms companies in the meantime have been conducting booming business with Iraq in recent years. According to the German Federal Statistics Office, German military exports to Iraq have been steadily rising from year to year.From annual exports amounting to 21,7 million euro in 1997, the volume of exports for the following year shot to some 76,4 million euro. The trend continued in 2001 with exports to Iraq bringing German firms profits in the range of 336,5 million euro. ... Another real fear is that Schröder's image as a staunch pacifist might now be sullied if it emerges that Germany has all along been helping the very leader who it has been unwilling to topple, to stockpile his weapons.""Sean Penn condemns US threats against Iraq" (Iraq Daily, 2002/12/16)
I never bothered with Sean Penn's open letter addressed to President Bush in October in the form of a $56,000 advertisement in The Washington Post ("Sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror.") and thought I'd skip his Iraqi-trip as well. This article is of course Iraqi propaganda rather than Penn's actual words, but the very notion that the brooding actor "confirmed that Iraq is completely clear of weapons of mass destruction" after a three-day visit is sort of funny. It's also interesting as an example of how the Iraqi regime makes use of him:
"The American movie star, Sean Penn has condemned the US-British threats to wage war against Iraq. He told press conference that there is no legitimate justification for the brutal campaign against an authentic state like Iraq. He confirmed that Iraq is completely clear of weapons of mass destruction and the United Nations must adopt a positive stance towards Iraq. He also condemned the US misleading claims arguing that it is the US and not Iraq who is practicing such illegal behavior. Mr. Penn went on saying that he would convey to the public opinion in US the real situation that the Americans should force the US administration to stop such aggressive campaign. Finally, Mr. Penn passed a written communiqué in which he declared that his visit to Iraq is to evaluate the humanitarian situation of Iraqis and to reject the crippling sanctions on Iraq since 1991." (See also: "Actor Follows His Own Script on Iraq and War" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/12/16))"UN gives Saddam deadline to name weapons scientists" (James Bone and New York and Michael Evans, The Times, 2002/12/16)
"The UNs chief weapons inspector has given President Saddam Hussein two weeks to identify the key Iraqi scientists to be interviewed by his team of experts. Hans Blix wrote to Iraqs leader last week, reminding him of his obligation under the UN Security Council resolution to allow his inspectors to speak to those who had been involved in the clandestine programme to produce weapons of mass destruction. ... If Saddam fails to meet Dr Blixs demands, he could be accused of being in material breach of the UN resolution, providing President Bush with a possible reason for launching a military attack.""Pentagon: No Comment on Report of Troops in N.Iraq" (Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/15)
"The Pentagon said on Sunday it had no information about an alleged movement of U.S. troops and equipment into northern Iraq from Turkey, reported by Turkey's NTV and the Arabic Al-Jazeera television channel. A Pentagon spokesman in Washington said: "I have nothing on that." ... Al-Jazeera quoted Turkish military sources as saying 50 U.S. military trucks had started transporting equipment on Saturday from an air base in southern Turkey into three areas in northern Iraq controlled by Kurds. The report said the trucks had used the Habur border crossing. "Jazeera learned that there are 500 U.S. special forces training around 2,000 Kurds and making logistical preparations for the arrival of thousands of U.S. troops in the event of an attack on Iraq," the Qatar-based television channel said.""Hussein's Obsession: An Empire of Mosques" (John F. Burns, The New York Times, 2002/12/15)
"First, the minarets. The outer four, each 140 feet high, were built to resemble the barrels of Kalashnikov rifles, pointing skyward. The inner four, each 120 feet high, look like the Scud missiles that Iraq fired at Israel in 1991 during the Mother of All Battles, known to Americans as the Persian Gulf war. ... Inside a special sanctum, treated by the mosque's custodian with the reverence due a holy of holies, there are 650 pages of the Koran - written, it is said, in Mr. Hussein's blood. As the official legend has it, "Mr. President" donated 28 liters of his blood - about 50 pints - over two years, and a famous calligrapher, Abas al-Baghdadi, mixed it with ink and preservatives to produce the handsome writing now laid out page by page in glass-walled display cases. ... Mosque-building - on a scale, Iraqi officials say, that no Arab leader has undertaken since the days of the great Abbasid caliphs who ruled the Arab world from Baghdad until the middle of the 13th century - has become Mr. Hussein's grand obsession. ... A few miles from the Mother of All Battles Mosque, two others are rising that will dwarf it. One five times the size, with many similar features in celebration of Mr. Hussein, is to be known as the Mosque of Saddam the Great.""Hollywood goes to war" (Diana West, The Washington Times, 2002/12/13)
West on Artists United to Win Without War: "Sure, AUWWW wrote that Saddam Hussein shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction after all, but neither, it said, should George W. Bush contemplate disarming him by force - the main point - lest terrorism, human suffering, anti-Americanism, economic misery, a loss in America's "moral standing" and maybe even low Nielsen ratings come to pass. No word on the potential consequences of a nuclear-enhanced Saddam. Which may explain why there is on AUWWW's part no comprehension why George W. Bush is contemplating military action against Saddam's Iraq. Indeed, this very question is pulling La-La Landers in over their carefully-coifed, if sometimes grizzled, heads. Erstwhile "Lou Grant" star Ed Asner, for example, has answered it by explaining that Bush administration officials "have keyed and geared the war machine . . . [to the point] that they've got to unload it someplace. Iraq," he told United Press International, "is the likeliest place." Translation: It (meaning the Pentagon) is alive! The Pentagon has to go to war - or else! While this cartoonish scenario may well be next summer's blockbuster, as geopolitical strategy it lacks a little dimension. Call it Asnerian." (See also: "Celebrities urge Bush to avoid Iraq war" (UPI, 2002/12/10))"The link" (Andrew Sullivan, The Washington Times, 2002/12/13)
"What to make of the anonymous leaked report that U.S. intelligence has picked up evidence that Iraq has transferred VX nerve gas to al Qaeda? The report, cited yesterday by The Washington Post, suggests that this could have happened as recently as this October. One obvious conclusion: If it's true, then the war against Iraq is now inevitable. Such a transaction shows that the Dec. 8 declaration that Saddam had no chemical weapons was a lie, and, as such, is an unequivocal material breach of U.N. resolutions, requiring the United States and other nations to act. More profoundly, it shows that an Iraq-al Qaeda connection is not a fantasy. It's real. We don't even need a a U.N. resolution for an attack on these grounds, since an alliance with al Qaeda makes an attack on Iraq a de facto act of self-defense after September 11." (See also: "U.S. Suspects Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From Iraqis" (Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, 2002/12/12))"This post of mine..." (Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit, 2002/12/12)
In an earlier post Reynolds pointed out that the peace movement is "objectively pro-Saddam": "Well, Saddam says - in a passage quoted in that very post - that he's stalling because he thinks that if he waits long enough American public opinion (which I interpret, reasonably enough, I think, to mean "the antiwar movement") will force Bush not to invade. And there's nothing new about that strategy - it's been the strategy of every U.S. adversary since Vietnam. (What's more, the "antiwar movement" that they've relied on has been pretty much the same people, using the same slogans, regardless of the actual circumstances involved.) But regardless of whether members of the anti-war movement subjectively support Saddam (many of them, as David Corn has reported, are more accurately described as anti-American than pro-Saddam, but there are plenty of thoughtful folks like Henley who don't fit that mold) the fact is that their opposition to the war is a key element in his strategy. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong, of course: what's best for Saddam could conceivably also be what's best for America, though that's not much of a slogan."(See also: "A dossier as empty as a factory when the UN calls" (Max Boot, The Times, 2002/12/10))"The Capital Makes Up Its Mind" (Timothy Garton Ash, The New York Times, 2002/12/12)
"My own impression from talking to people inside and close to the Bush administration is that the Iraq war is now a matter of when and how rather than whether. With his 12,000-page report to the United Nations, Saddam Hussein has written perhaps the longest suicide note in history. ... And that's for starters. A new, democratic and prosperous Iraq is to be a model for its neighbors, as West Germany was for its unfree neighbors during the cold war. Some in Washington now talk of encouraging a velvet revolution to democratize Iran. Then there's the United States' rich and friendly but oppressive ally, Saudi Arabia, with its Wahhabi hate wells beside those oil wells. No one in the administration yet says this publicly, but there is a logic that leads from the democratization of Iraq to that of Saudi Arabia. And so people are talking quietly here about a Wilsonian project for reshaping the whole Middle East, a plan comparable in its ambition to those for Europe in 1919 and 1949. World-weary Europeans, and people in the Middle East, may doubt the feasibility of this idea and the United States' capacity to sustain it. We Europeans would better spend our time thinking how to complement and improve it.""U.S. Suspects Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From Iraqis" (Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, 2002/12/12)
"The Bush administration has received a credible report that Islamic extremists affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or late in October, according to two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source. They said government analysts suspect that the transaction involved the nerve agent VX and that a courier managed to smuggle it overland through Turkey. If the report proves true, the transaction marks two significant milestones. It would be the first known acquisition of a nonconventional weapon other than cyanide by al Qaeda or a member of its network. It also would be the most concrete evidence to support the charge, aired for months by President Bush and his advisers, that al Qaeda terrorists receive material assistance in Iraq.""Iraqi regime hiding scientists" (David Wastell, The Washington Times, 2002/12/11)
"Many of the Iraqi scientists U.N. arms inspectors want to interview have been spirited abroad or switched to innocuous posts and their places taken by unknown technicians, according to Iraqi exiles and Western officials. As the weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix prepare to summon the first of several hundred potential interview subjects, the Baghdad authorities have put some beyond reach and moved others to jobs with no direct involvement in Iraq's nuclear-, chemical- or biological-weapons programs. "Most of those working on the nuclear program in the 1980s and early 1990s have been sent away to university or industrial positions. Some have been sent outside Iraq, including those working on chemical- and biological-warfare agents," said Hussein Shahristani, a former chief researcher with Iraq's atomic energy organization who spent 11 years in jail before fleeing abroad.""Nukes, 'Overwhelming Force' for Germ or Bio Attackers" (AP/FOX News, 2002/12/11)
"In a warning to Iraq and other hostile countries, the United States says it is prepared to use "overwhelming force" - including nuclear weapons - in response to any chemical or biological attack. The threat was contained in a White House document, called the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction," to be delivered to Congress on Wednesday. The six-page statement underscores long-standing policy that the United States 'reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) against the United States, our forces abroad and friends and allies.'" (See also: "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" (The White House, 2002/12/11))"Iraq charges US with "banditry unparalleled" over arms declaration move" (AFP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/11)
"Baghdad accused Washington of "banditry unparalleled" in UN history after the United States seized a crucial Iraqi arms declaration within hours of its delivery to the world body's headquarters in New York. ... Washington had earlier defended its removal of the massive declaration, saying it was essential to restrict circulation of sensitive details of how Baghdad made weapons of mass destruction to the five permanent members of the Security Council who are declared nuclear powers. ... In the Arab world, where Washington is widely suspected of plotting to derail the UN disarmament process as a pretext for military action, the US action Sunday, which only emerged late Monday, was also branded an 'act of piracy.'""Celebrities urge Bush to avoid Iraq war" (UPI, 2002/12/10)
"More than 100 Hollywood celebrities have written to President Bush, urging him to avoid a first-strike war with Iraq. Former "M*A*S*H" star Mike Farrell - a main organizer of the group called Artists United to Win Without War - said the letter's signers agree that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction, but that "war talk in Washington is alarming and unnecessary." The list of signers included Martin Sheen, who plays President Josiah Bartlet on the Emmy-winning NBC drama "The West Wing," and other Hollywood activists including Alec Baldwin, Harry Belafonte, Tim Robbins and Barbra Streisand." Anticipating criticism that usually attends public pronouncements by well-known liberal celebrities, Farrell made a point of characterizing the signers as patriotic Americans. "We support rigorous U.N. weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarm," said Farrell. "However, a presumptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests." ... Other celebrities who signed the letter included Oscar-winners Kim Basinger, Angelica Houston, Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon - as well as actors Matt Damon, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman and Laurence Fishburne.""Carter warns against 'catastrophic' war" (BBC News, 2002/12/10)
"Former US president Jimmy Carter has warned of the potentially "catastrophic consequences" of a pre-emptive US war on Iraq. The comments came in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo. Mr Carter did not mention either country by name, but said: "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventative war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences." ... In an interview with the BBC, the former US president refused to criticise George W Bush's handling of Iraq. "The government has decided that action should be multilateral. The US has taken a completely appropriate multilateral position," he told the BBC's HARDtalk programme." (See also: "Text of Carter's Nobel Peace Prize speech" (UPI, 2002/12/10))"A dossier as empty as a factory when the UN calls" (Max Boot, The Times, 2002/12/10)
"There is no mystery about why President Saddam Hussein chose to inundate the United Nations with 12,000 pages listing every food-processing facility, tannery and dairy in Iraq. The Butcher of Baghdad gave away the game in his first interview in 12 years, granted to the Egyptian newspaper Al-Usbu’a last month. "No doubt, time is working for us," he said. "We have to buy some more time, and the American-British coalition will disintegrate because of internal reasons and the pressure of public opinion in American and British streets." Saddam knows it will take a long time to wade through those 12,000 pages. And even when the "full and complete declaration" - actually, fully incomplete - is finally analysed, there will be endless debates about whether there is conclusive evidence of a "material breach". Even if weapons inspectors stumbled on a cache of nuclear weapons, this would not satisfy Saddam's defenders in Paris, who would no doubt claim these bombs were meant for heating cups of cocoa. ... If George Bush and Tony Blair feel compelled to get the UN’s written approval before attacking Saddam, they may well have to wait a long time - precisely what he intends. It's worth waiting a little longer; the US military won’t be ready for war for at least a month. But rather than lose the window of opportunity that may close once summer settles over Iraq, America and her closest allies would be better advised to strike anyway, whether or not they have UN support.""Iraq Papers Hint at Past Arms Efforts" (Dafna Linzer, AP/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/10)
"Iraq's arms declaration includes information on its past secret efforts to build a nuclear weapon and may list countries that helped it in its illicit arms programs, a nine-page table of contents suggested. The declaration also details Baghdad's efforts to build biological weapons, according to the listing distributed Monday by a U.S. official after Washington was given a copy of the full 12,000 page declaration. A former inspector who reviewed the table of contents said it appeared Iraqis were resubmitting old reports from the wake of the Gulf War more than a decade ago. Inspectors have said Iraq's previous declarations were incomplete. David Albright, an American who served on the nuclear inspections team in the 1990s, said the table "seems to confirm that on the nuclear side, the declaration has been recycled. A lot of this is pre-1991," he said." (See also: "Text: Iraq Report Table of Contents" (The New York Times, 2002/12/10))"Saddam's Lawyers" (Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post, 2002/12/09)
"In this country and throughout Europe, antiwar organizations cite international law in urging President Bush not to overthrow Saddam Hussein. ... All perfectly understandable; no one wants a world in which powerful countries feel free to go about smashing into weaker ones. ... And yet, given that they have taken on Saddam Hussein as their client, you have to wonder whether, if their reading of the law is right, there isn't something peculiar, something out of whack, about international law itself. Yes, national borders should be respected. But why should a gangster who has maintained power only by violating every norm of morality and law - including international law - be permitted the sanctuary of those borders? Why should his regime be entitled to the same protection as a government that represents its people? ... The opponents of war often claim to be speaking for the Iraqi people. ... About one in seven Iraqis has left the nation rather than live under his regime, as the British report pointed out. And last week, the nonprofit International Crisis Group (ICG), which conducts research in troubled regions in an effort to encourage wise policy, issued, to little notice, a compelling report entitled "Voices From the Iraqi Street." The ICG researcher, interviewing ordinary Iraqis for the sixth time in recent years, found them more open than ever before. This in itself might be seen as an initial success of Bush's policy; the ICG attributed it to "the feelings shared by many Iraqis that some kind of political change is now unavoidable." More remarkable, the interviewer found an "overwhelming sentiment ... of frustration and impatience with the status quo." People want change, are willing to say so and, 'if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it.'" (See also the report: "Voices From The Iraqi Street" (ICG, 2002/12/04): "A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it. ... It should not be assumed from this that such support as might exist for a U.S. operation is unconditional. It appears to be premised on the belief both that any such military action would be quick and clean and that it would be followed by a robust international reconstruction effort. Should either of these prove untrue – if the war proved to be bloody and protracted or if Iraq lacked sufficient assistance afterwards – the support in question may well not be very long sustained.")"Saddam and al Qaeda" (David Rose, The Evening Standard, 2002/12/09)
Found via InstaPundit: "Despite their bitter divisions over possible war in Iraq, doves and many hawks on this side of the Atlantic share a common, often-stated belief: that there is "no evidence" of a link between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and Saddam Hussein's regime. In London and Washington, the Foreign Office, MI6, the State Department and the CIA have been spinning this claim to reporters for more than a decade, long before the attacks of 11 September last year. Constant repetition of an erroneous position does not, however, make it true. Having investigated the denial of an Iraqi connection for more than a year, I am convinced it is false. ... As I reveal in Vanity Fair, earlier this year the Pentagon established a special intelligence unit to re-examine evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. After initially fighting the proposal, the CIA agreed to supply this unit with copies of its own reports going back 10 years. I have spoken to three senior officials who have seen its conclusions, which are striking. "In the Cold War, says one of them, "often you'd draw firm conclusions and make policy on the basis of just four or five reports. Here there are almost 100 separate examples of Iraq-al Qaeda co-operation going back to 1992." All these reports, says the official, were given the CIA's highest credibility rating - defined as information from a source which had proven reliable in the past. At least one concerns Bin Laden personally, who is said to have spent weeks with a top Mukhabarat officer in Afghanistan in 1998.""Iraq admits it's on the brink of creating nukes" (Vincent Morris, New York Post, 2002/12/09)
"A top adviser to Saddam Hussein admitted yesterday that Iraq is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. "We have the complete documentation, from design to all the other things," Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi told reporters in Baghdad. "We haven't reached the final assembly of a bomb nor tested it." Details of the nuclear program are included in Iraq's 12,000-page declaration to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Saadi said. ... He insisted that despite knowing how to build a nuke, Iraq has not done so. ... He said the report also includes sensitive information about how other countries helped Iraq with programs to create weapons of mass destruction. If it's released, he said, it will "embarrass" some countries and companies.""The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq" (George Packer, The New York Times Magazine, 2002/12/08)
Packer traces the quandary back to Bosnia. Including interviews with Michael Ignatieff, Michael Walzer, Paul Berman, David Rieff, Leon Wieseltier and Christopher Hitchens about their positions on Iraq: "One chilly evening in late November, a panel discussion on Iraq was convened at New York University. The participants were liberal intellectuals, and one by one they framed reasonable arguments against a war in Iraq: inspections need time to work; the Bush doctrine has a dangerous agenda; the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not encouraging. The audience of 150 New Yorkers seemed persuaded. Then the last panelist spoke. He was an Iraqi dissident named Kanan Makiya, and he said, ''I'm afraid I'm going to strike a discordant note.'' He pointed out that Iraqis, who will pay the highest price in the event of an invasion, ''overwhelmingly want this war.'' He outlined a vision of postwar Iraq as a secular democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens. This vision would be new to the Arab world. ... The effect was electrifying. The room, which just minutes earlier had settled into a sober and comfortable rejection of war, exploded in applause. The other panelists looked startled, and their reasonable arguments suddenly lay deflated on the table before them. Michael Walzer, who was on the panel, smiled wanly. ''It's very hard to respond,'' he said. It was hard, I thought, because Makiya had spoken the language beloved by liberal hawks. He had met their hope of avoiding a war with an even greater hope. He had given the people in the room an image of their own ideals.''"The Trouble With Amnesty" (The Wall Street Journal, 2002/12/08)
"The London-based organization does not dispute the contents of the dossier, "Saddam Hussein: Crimes and Human Rights Abuses." In fact, the British Foreign Office relied on human rights groups to put together this report. But according to an Amnesty spokesman, "human rights should not be used as an excuse to go to war." This has been Amnesty's line pretty consistently. Its secretary general, Irene Khan, wrote recently that "this selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists. Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War." This raises several questions. An immediate one is, shouldn't human rights be the best cause for starting a war? Shouldn't conscientious governments care when human beings are being mistreated, and do something about it? ... The group has raised a fuss about al Qaeda and Taliban operatives being held in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. But why? Despite their crimes, they are not being tortured, they get three square meals a day, a shower and time to pray. It has also practically put the entire blame for the Middle Eastern conflict on the Israelis, absolving the Palestinians of almost all responsibility. Now it goes soft on Saddam, because the U.S. is finally getting tough with him. This is human rights work?" (See also: "UK unveils Iraq 'torture' dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/02)"Buildup Leaves U.S. Military Nearly Set to Start Attack" (Eric Schmitt, The New York Times, 2002/12/08)
"The United States will soon have enough heavy tanks, warships, aircraft, bombs and troops in the Persian Gulf region to enable it to begin an attack against Iraq sometime in January, senior military officials say. About 60,000 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, as well as about 200 warplanes, are in or near the region. The Army alone has 9,000 soldiers, 24 Apache helicopter gunships and heavy equipment for two armored brigades in Kuwait. ... Taken together, those are unmistakable signs that before long, President Bush will be in a position to order an attack to disarm Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, and have it carried out within days, senior military officials said.""Iraq hands over weapons dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/07)
"Iraq has handed over to the United Nations a huge dossier setting out details of the country's weapons programme - one day ahead of the deadline to do so. Iraqi officials carried the 12,000-page document and two separate annexes into the UN inspectors' Baghdad headquarters in cardboard boxes and plastic bags. ... National Monitoring Directorate head Hussam Mohammed Amin said that Iraq was "empty of any weapons of mass destruction", although the document contained some activities which were potentially for dual military and civilian use. The BBC's Ben Brown in Baghdad says that in view of this, the dossier is almost certain to fall short of US and British demands." (See also: "Kuwaitis urged to expel 'infidels'" (BBC News, 2002/12/07): "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has appealed to the Kuwaiti people to support Baghdad against what he called infidel forces. In a televised address read by Information Minister Mohamed Said Sahaf, the Iraqi leader said both Iraq and Kuwait had been victims of the Gulf War in 1991. But he accused the leadership of Kuwait of conspiring "hand in hand" with those who were preparing to attack Iraq, and urged Kuwaitis to join the fight against this. Saddam Hussein also apologised to the Kuwaitis for what he termed acts that had caused anger in the past, saying he wanted to set the record straight about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. 'We apologise to God for any deed that angered him in the past, which we might not have known of and is blamed on us, and on this basis we also apologise to you.'")"U.S. Is Pressuring Inspectors in Iraq to Aid Defections" (Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, 2002/12/06)
"The Bush administration has stepped up pressure on Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspection team to identify key Iraqi weapons scientists and spirit them out of Iraq so they can be offered asylum in exchange for disclosing where Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction, according to administration and United Nations officials. High-level negotiations on the issue became visible when Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, met with Mr. Blix in New York on Monday and pressed the issue of interviewing Iraqi scientists. The administration is offering to set up a witness protection program for defecting Iraqi scientists, thus enabling a more aggressive approach.""U.S. has 'solid' arms proof" (Bill Sammon, The Washington Times, 2002/12/06)
"The White House yesterday said it has "solid" evidence that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and accused Saddam Hussein's regime of "lying" for denying it. With Baghdad poised to repeat its denial in a report to the United Nations tomorrow, President Bush was asked by a reporter to assess the likelihood of war. "That's a question that you should ask Saddam Hussein," he said, sparking laughter in the Cabinet Room of the White House. "It's his choice to make." He added: "To answer your question, the question is whether or not he chooses to disarm. And we hope he does. For the sake of peace, he must disarm."
Asked when he would decide whether to wage war, Mr. Bush said, 'You'll see.'" (See also: "Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer" (The White House, 2002/12/05): "President Bush has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Tony Blair has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; Richard Butler has said they do; the United Nations has said they do; the experts have said they do. Iraq says they don't. You can choose who you want to believe.")"Canadians go to Baghdad as 'human shields'" (CBC News, 2002/12/05)
Useful idiocy: "Some Canadians already have left for Iraq to serve as human shields against bomb attacks on Baghdad. More will follow before Christmas. ... Jo Wood, a psychology professor at Carleton University, says groups across Canada are raising money to fund a "national peace coalition" against a war on Iraq. As for the Canadians going to Baghdad, Wood says, "…they are prepared to risk their own lives by standing with the Iraqi people and positioning themselves at important public facilities, such as water plants and hospitals, in an effort to protect these against the bombs." As for those who condemn Saddam but profess support for the Iraqi people, Wood told CBC News Online that the Iraqi people get hurt either way. "All efforts to hurt Saddam hurt the Iraqi people much more and weaken them so that they cannot find their own resources to make a better world for themselves," she said.""U.S. set to cite Iraq for breach" (Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, 2002/12/05)
"The Bush administration is set to declare Iraq in violation of the U.N. resolution requiring Baghdad to give up weapons of mass destruction, The Washington Times has learned. "It is going to be 'material breach,' not as a casus belli [cause for war] but as a basis to begin hammering Unmovic to do more," said an administration official familiar with the internal debate. Unmovic, or the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, is the arms-inspection group for Iraq. Administration officials said a material-breach declaration will depend on whether Iraq fails to mention in its U.N. report some banned weapons programs identified in U.S. intelligence reports.""Iraqi VP Says U.N. Inspectors U.S., Israeli Spies" (Haitham Haddadin, Reuters, 2002/12/05)
"Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan, in a blistering attack on Wednesday, accused U.N. inspectors hunting for banned weapons in Iraq of being U.S. and Israeli spies. Ramadan, addressing an Egyptian delegation in a Baghdad hotel, reiterated Iraq's official line that it has no weapons of mass destruction for the arms experts to find. "The inspectors have come to provide better circumstances and more precise information for a coming aggression," Ramadan said. "This is not an accusation, because the inspectors, from day one, their foremost work was spying. Their work was spying for the CIA and Mossad together," added Ramadan, referring to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad intelligence service.""Iraq Declaration Will Not Admit to Banned Weapons" (Nadim Ladki, Reuters/Yahoo! News, 2002/12/04)
"Iraq said Wednesday the declaration it will hand to the U.N. will describe its biological, chemical, missile and nuclear technologies, but will not admit to having weapons of mass destruction. "The declaration will repeat that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction," Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, told a news conference. Iraq's denial that it possesses any such weapons puts it on a direct collision course with the United States, which insists it knows Iraq has them, demands a full and frank confession from Baghdad and warns it will disarm Iraq by force if necessary.""Countdown to Trigger Day" (Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 2002/12/04)
"To escape this time, Saddam Hussein must - must - fully declare and destroy all of his weapons of mass death. This White House will regard anything short of this result as material, and immediate, cause for war. On Sunday Saddam Hussein will produce a document, probably hundreds of pages long, that he will claim meets his obligations. It will be full of lies and obfuscations. In due - short - time, George Bush will say it is full of lies and obfuscations and that this is not acceptable. And so, almost certainly, to war." (See also: "Bush warns Saddam over inspections" (BBC News, 2002/12/02))"Saddam's useful idiots pollute the British Left" (Michael Gove, The Times, 2002/12/03)
"You can vaccinate key military personnel against smallpox. But you can't inoculate the British Left against its own strain of wilful stupidity. The Government yesterday chose to highlight the grotesque campaign of torture and brutalisation which President Saddam Hussein has been inflicting on his own people. ... Ms Khan is the Secretary-General of Amnesty International and, as of yesterday, number one pin-up girl in Baghdad's presidential palaces. For her reaction to the publication of the British Government's dossier on Saddam's human rights abuses was not satisfaction that one of the world’s most evil men was facing the scrutiny he deserved, but anger that something might be done about him. "This selective attention to human rights," Ms Khan pronounced, "is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists." Why is Ms Khan's reaction to this dossier condemnation for the British Government rather than the Iraqi? You would have thought that if Amnesty International were objecting to anyone's cold and calculated manipulation, it would be the Iraqi regime's wrenching of innocent civilians' arms out of their sockets. ... Why is it that so many of those whose political creed should be driven by a desire to emancipate those who are suffering choose to object to a course of action which would deliver millions from misery? ... The only thing left puzzling me is why those who claim to believe in human rights are not willing to see something worthwhile done to uphold them." (See also: "UK unveils Iraq 'torture' dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/02))"The mother of all package tours" (Johann Hari, The Guardian, 2002/12/03)
From moral equivalence to moral inversion. Hari reports from a package tour to Iraq: "The group had a handful of people like Phil, risk-takers craving a change from Marbella and some amusing dinner-party anecdotes. Sean, a 36-year-old New York restaurateur and multimillionaire, was clearly in this category. He lives a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero and witnessed the attack on the Twin Towers, but he appeared to be America's biggest peacenik. "If I was going to Iraq to shoot a bunch of people, everyone back home would say I was a hero. But because I'm coming to hang out with the people and see what they're like, they think I'm a suspect character." He believes that the US and Iraq are morally equivalent: "You can't say the US is any better than Iraq. We have no right to lecture anyone, ever," he insisted, chewing his gum. ... Then there was Hannah. How to explain her? A frightfully well-spoken Englishwoman in her early 50s. When we first met, she dispensed with the small talk to say: "I think Saddam is a great man and the USA is a great big global bully. My theory is that he should be given Kuwait. It's perfectly logical if you look at the map." "I think he's rather handsome too," she went on. "Every woman does really. I'd rather like to inspect his weapon of mass destruction myself." Sorry, what was that you said about ... 'Oh, people say how can you say that, but I say, how can you support Bush when he is about to murder so many Iraqis? Hmmm? We must show our solidarity with Saddam.'""Bush warns Saddam over inspections" (BBC News, 2002/12/02)
"Speaking ahead of the signing of a defence bill, he said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had until next Sunday to prove that he was serious about averting war. ... In his first extended comments on the inspections, Mr Bush said it was not up to monitors working in Iraq to uncover any hidden weapons. It was, he said, Baghdad's duty to give a "credible and complete" declaration of its stocks. Baghdad denies possessing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. President Bush said his government would be making one judgement in the inspection process: "Has Saddam Hussein changed his behaviour of the last 11 years? Has he decided to co-operate willingly and comply completely, or has he not? "So far the signs are not encouraging," he said." (See also: "President Signs National Defense Authorization Act" (George W. Bush, The White House, 2002/12/02))"UK unveils Iraq 'torture' dossier" (BBC News, 2002/12/02)
"A dossier of human rights abuses allegedly perpetrated by the Iraqi regime, including torture and rape, has been released by the UK government. It is the government's most detailed account yet of rights violations in Iraq, according to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, speaking as the document was published on Monday. ... The report contains graphic first-hand accounts by Iraqi victims of the type of brutality they claim to have encountered, as well as intelligence material and evidence from aid charities in the region. However, human rights organisation Amnesty International has criticised its timing, saying ministers are exploiting the issues to justify their own ends. The dossier was launched six days before Baghdad must submit a full declaration of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, or face "serious consequences" under United Nations resolution 1441. ... Amnesty International secretary general Irene Khan disagreed. She said: 'This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists.'" (See also the dossier: "Saddam Hussein: crimes and human rights abuses" (Foreign & Commonwealth Office/BBC News, November 2002))"U.S. Is Preparing Base in Gulf State to Run Iraq War" (Michael R. Gordon, The New York Times, 2002/12/01)
A report from Qatar: "The United States military is installing a new command center at a heavily guarded base in this small Persian Gulf state that would be ready to serve as the main headquarters for a war on Iraq. The official purpose of the work at the base, As Sayliyah, is to prepare for a major American military exercise in December called Internal Look. But it will be no ordinary exercise. American officials say that it will be the first time that a war game of its type has been conducted outside the United States and that the command and control procedures practiced would be the same used for a war with Iraq."
Copyright © Watch 2001-2006. Copyrights of quoted materials
belong to their respective owners.
"When
people accept futility and the absurd as normal, the culture is decadent.
The term is not a slur; it is a technical label."
Articles
of the week
"Losing the Enlightenment" (Victor Davis Hanson, OpinionJournal, 2006/11/29)
"Allah’s England?" (Daniel Johnson, Commentary. November 2006)
"'Sex in the Park': The latest doings of the Danish imams" (Henrik Bering, The Weekly Standard, 2006/11/18)
"Narcissism on Stilts" (Harold Evans, New York Sun, 2006/11/16)
"Terrorists are recruiting in our schools, says MI5 boss" (Philip Johnston, The Daily Telegraph, 2006/11/10)
›
AOTW Archive
From the archives
Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.
"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt" (Oriana Fallaci, The Wall Street Journal, 2003/03/13)
"How the West Was Won and How It Will Be Lost" (Oriana Fallaci, The American Enterprise, from the January/February 2003 issue)
"On Jew-hatred in Europe" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2002/04/13)
"Anger and Pride" (Oriana Fallaci, dennisprager.com, 2001/12/19)
Weekly archive
2006/12/04
- 2006/12/10
2006/11/27 - 2006/12/03
2006/11/20 - 2006/11/26
2006/11/13
- 2006/11/19
2006/11/06
- 2006/11/12
2006/10/30
- 2006/11/05
›
From
2001/09/11 -
Monthly
index
December
2006
November
2006
October
2006
September
2006
August
2006
July
2006
›
From
September 2001 -
Author index
›
Ajami,
Fouad - Johnson, Paul
›
Kagan,
Robert - Ye'or, Bat
Support
Watch
Please
feel free to donate if you enjoy the daily content and links Watch provides:
Contact Watch
Email:
watch-at-windsofchange.net
