So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625217,

People fundamentally want freedom. You'll never convince me otherwise.

I don't disagree with your point. I vehemently disagree with your saluted means for bringing democracy to who did not invite US liberation by a B2 bomber dropping four GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad.


The following dead people were deprived of their ultimate right to life ... no matter what circumstances they were born into:

NF 11617557

Boss 11617452

Now as for the "killing and destruction" most of the people killed were terrorists. There is always some collateral damage in war but in terms of this particular war compared to others, there was very little.

There were no terrorists to kill inside Iraq's boundaries in March and April 2003 when four members of this family were killed by Bush's bombing sensation?

058 Salma Amin 50

059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma)

060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma)

061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma)

This family was the 58th through 61st civilian victim of the US bombing shock and awe of Iraq in March through April 2003.

The Pentagon reported on 7 April that a B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

;When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out -- torso first, then the head -- her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed;
.
That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

They are dead. Their survivors must be grateful for your support of the great Bush killing spree to force democracy on them.
.

Your ideas are a right wing perversion of the ideal of liberty mostly for selfish political enhancement.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625237

I'm just repeating what the left-wing said at the time.

The 'left wing' is not a credible source for you to cite. It sounds like more of some of the many things you imagine to be true but aren't.

What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work. I don't know about 'wings' and the way you think in divisive terms all the time. But the majority of Americans polled in February and early March wanted Bush to allow the UN inspections to have more time.

 

[Boss]

What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work.

Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended. He said international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. Saddam continued to obfuscate, complain, stonewall, cast shadows on interviewing, block entry to certain scheduled inspections while he moved shit around... he was doing everything he could to avoid compliance and compliance was what the resolution ordered him to do.

It wasn't the job of inspectors to go in there and "catch as catch can" with this, they accepted in good faith that Saddam would cooperate and he just didn't. These people were UN officials, not detectives. Their job was not to seek out and find shit... they were there to confirm weapons had been destroyed, raw materials were accounted for, and there was no ongoing operations in this area. That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What I do know is that the terrorists do not come into Iraq if Bush had allowed the inspection to continue for a few more months instead if invading Iraq before the inspectors could finish their work.

Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended. He said international community could not be certain whether they knew if Saddam was in compliance with UN1441. Saddam continued to obfuscate, complain, stonewall, cast shadows on interviewing, block entry to certain scheduled inspections while he moved shit around... he was doing everything he could to avoid compliance and compliance was what the resolution ordered him to do.



It wasn't the job of inspectors to go in there and "catch as catch can" with this, they accepted in good faith that Saddam would cooperate and he just didn't. These people were UN officials, not detectives. Their job was not to seek out and find shit... they were there to confirm weapons had been destroyed, raw materials were accounted for, and there was no ongoing operations in this area. That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!

How about a direct quote from Blix such as I provided that shows the inspections were useful., of course he could not be certain when Bush prematurely ended his work.,

But why not an actual quote instead of your embellished renditions?

 

[JoeB131]

pretty embarassing stuff there. Saudis have informed us of the same serious concerns. They just weren't running for office at the time.

That and we'd have been outraged had an ARAB leader pulled the shit Bibi did.

In fact, we now know they have been in joint security talks with Israel to face down the list of Iranian problems. Kerrey and Obama didn't think better of it -- nor did they arrive at brink because they are afraid of Zionists. Putin embarrass the shit out of those amateur posers by showing them how REAL diplomacy works.[/QUOTE]

Okay, if Putin was great at "diplomacy", he wouldn't be at the edge of economic collapse right now becuase he totally miscalculated the Ukraine.

What happened in Syria was for a glorious moment, Americans listened to the Zionist/NeoCon conspiracy and said, "no. Fuck that."

Sadly, the Zionists and Saudis did manage to weaken Assad enough to where ISIL controls half the country

In your conspiracy damaged world -- you are gonna get the background of every MidEast story wrong.. Can't even depend on the Zionist media to back you up this crappy laziness. Must mean you are right -- eh??

Meh, again, pretty much obvious what the zionists do. They don't even bother trying to hide it. The good news is, Americans are getting tired of sending their boys off to die over there. Those clowns might have to fight their own war for a change.

Never see your "explanations" in legitimate print anywhere??? Just part of the conspiracy.. I thought you were a smarter leftist than that Joe...

"Legitmate print" spends two weeks talking about the white woman who pretended to be black and how that's totally different than Bruce Jenner wearing a dress and pretending to be a woman.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11618398

On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN.

If you are going to cite Blix as your source to declare the 2003 UN inspections a failure you will need to quote the Doctor declaring such. He didnt. You are fabricating your own reality again. Dr. Blix never reported any such conclusion that the inspections were failing. By Early March he was preparing to begin setting up the long term monitoring regime which was to begin as soon as the UN Inspection phase was complete. If inspections were failing he would have reported that to the Security Council to reconvene on what action was to be taken next.

Blix nor Al Beradai reported anything about inspection failure.

You don't have a direct quote to back your fairy tale up once again.

From Dr. Blix report on March 19, 2003 (day after evacuation):

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.

From Dr. Blix report on June 5, 2003 (post-invasion):

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation. It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.
...

Although during the last month and a half of our inspections, the Iraqi side made considerable efforts to provide explanations, to begin inquiries and to undertake exploration and excavations, these efforts did not bring the answers needed before we withdrew. We did not have time to interview more than a handful of the large number of persons who were said by Iraq to have participated in the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons in 1991. Such interviews might have helped towards the resolution of some outstanding issues, although one must be aware that the totalitarian regime in Iraq continued to cast a shadow on the credibility of all interviews.

UNMOVIC - Selected Security Council Briefings

So you cite Blix only after Bush kicked the inspectors out when of course he had to say his work was not conclusive. Bush ran him out of the country - how was he to be able to finalize his conclusions when Bush is bombing and invading the country.

You said the inspections were a failure and cited Blix. Prior to the invasion you have produce no such remarks by Blix. You also said SH obstructed the inspection process. That was a fabrication:

The link you provided shows proof that your "failure" commentary citing Blix was pure fiction;

.

Inspection process

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to the countries, which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but also to the States, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of aircraft on their territory.
2003

"but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. " Blix March 7, 2003.

 

[Faun]

I had a hunch you're a piece of shit who would try to back track his words after you were proven to be an abject moron. Here are your own words saying what you now pretend you never said...

"Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

Then, when I pointed out the idiocy of that retarded claim of yours ...

"Congress has absolutely no authority to send troops to war."

... which is a completely accurate statement, you protested it.

You had no fucking clue what powers were granted the president and Congress until I educated you. But it seems you learned because you've changed your position from the idiotic notion that Congress sends troops into war .... to the actual Constitutional power of declaring war and funding the military.

You're welcome.

Well it's because you are a retard trying to find some minutiae to pick at because you can't justify why your Democrat leaders funded the War in Iraq every chance they got. Whenever a retard can't explain something, they jump on something they can nit pick and create a diversion. In this case, you failed to properly interpret my comments in context. You assumed I meant to say something I didn't say. I said "voters don't send troops to war" and that is a true statement which you've not refuted. I added, "Congress does that" and by "that" I mean "ostensibly sends troops to war by virtue of declaring said war whereby the president will always dispatch said troops to said war." There has never been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president did not send troops. You can't cite any example at any time in our nation's history and you never will because such a thing will not happen.

What you call, "minutiae," is actually your own retarded words fed back to you. And just because there's not been a case where a president did not send troops into battle following a Congressional declaration of war, doesn't mean the president is required to. They're not. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate a president to start a war simply because the Congress declares one. Not to mention, there have been 11 such declarations and in every case, the president asked the Congress to declare war.

You really should educate yourself.

And as I said, you took my words out of context to make them mean something I didn't intend or say. I have now clarified what I meant and you still want to stubbornly insist you know better than me what I meant to say.

Now.... HAS there ever been an instance where Congress declared a war and the president refused to send troops? Yes or fucking No? (Answer is: NO!) Still, you stubbornly cling to some retarded idea that this COULD happen. It won't, it never has happened. As you said, there have been 11 declarations and every one was because the president requested them. So we're getting even more convoluted and your argument becomes even more silly and ridiculous.

Too funny. I didn't take you out of context .... I quoted you vebatim.

Congress has the enumerated power to declare war. In essence, that is the same as having the power to send troops because that's what happens when Congress declares a war. There is no case where that didn't happen. There is also a rather lengthy list of enumerated powers Congress has regarding the military including the appropriation of funding for various things. So Congress certainly has control of most everything our military does one way or another.

I know that you thought this whole argument was rather clever but it was actually pretty retarded.

Holyfuckingshit!

You try to save face by bullshittingly saying I took your words out of context -- but then you repeat your idiocy. No, moron, the Congress cannot send troops into war. That is a power delegated to the president. Your nonsense about how you're right since there's never been a case where troops weren't deployed following a Congressional declaration on war is retarded since there's never been a case where Congress declared war without the president asking them to do so. Meanwhile, the Constitution is crystal clear, even if you can't understand it. The president, and not the Congress, has the power to send troops into war.

You are a fucking imbecile

I have already said that you are technically right about Congress not sending troops to war. The Constitution gives the president the role as Commander in Chief of the military so he is the one who makes decisions on deployment. Do we have any disagreement on this whatsoever? I see YOU saying it, I see ME saying it... so we agree on what the Constitution says, right?

What you took out of context was one sentence: "Voters don't send troops to war... Congress does that!" You locked in to "congress sends troops to war" which is not what I said in context. What I said can be taken out of context and you can claim that's what I intended, which is what you've done and I've now corrected three times. I've even admitted I did a poor job of stating what was meant and re-clarified what I intended. You don't care to hear it, you just want to score a debate point... okay, congrats... you caught a technicality... score a point for retard boy!

Regardless, the point still remains that Congress does ostensibly "send troops into wars" because that's precisely the result of any Congressional declaration of war or authorization of force. Once Congress acts, the president sends troops because that is his duty as CinC... and in all 11 cases where Congress issued a declaration, it was because the president requested it. There has never been an incident where Congress declared war and no troops were sent to war and such a thing would never happen in the real world, technicality or not.

The point STILL remains that VOTERS don't send troops to war. That was my point and where this all started. Now do you want to argue that "technically" since we DO vote for the man who sends troops to war that voters indirectly DO send troops... okay, maybe you can score another technical point? But most non-retarded people understand the point I was making.

Lemme get this straight ... you're now admitting I was "technically" correct about a point you called the dumbest post of the day?

And you're still wrong in principle. The Congress cannot send troops into war, not even indirectly by declaring war. That's the president's Constitutionally authorized role. A president is not Constitutionally obligated to send troops to war just because Congress declares war. You remain thoroughly baffled by the very Constitution you thought I needed to read up on.

 

[Faun]

First of all, the Jewish people have nothing to do with our system of government or how US foreign policies are established. Do Jewish-Americans have political influence? Sure they do, just like Liberal morons, corporate billionaires, special interest lobbies, labor unions and PACs. It's called having a free society with protected rights of free speech. Now you say they have "undue influence" but you didn't explain... do you think free speech is limited to a certain amount depending on who you are? Because I don't think it is and I don't believe the founders thought it should be.

Uh, no. Yes, it's true big corporations have too much influence because we allow this legal bribery of campaign donations.

But I can't think of another foreign country that has a Lobby like AIPAC. I can't think of another foriegn leader who has ever been invited to speak before Congress to badmouth our president. And that's the shit these fuckers do in the open. God know what we don't know about.

The fact is, most people in this country aren't Jew-haters like you. They wouldn't tolerate a president who didn't give a shit about the Jewish people. The only reason they've tolerated Obama is because he is a good liar. Israel is our ally... in fact, one of our few allies in the region. This angers radical terrorists who are religiously committed to killing Jews... maybe that's why you like them so much?

69% of Jewish-American voted for Obama in 2012. 71% voted for him in 2008. Obama did better among Jewish voters than any other demographics other than blacks.

The reality is, most American Jews kind of consider Israel to be an embarrassment. After years of whining about the Nazis, they've BECOME the Nazis.

The other point you make is about some "unquenchable thirst" for oil. Interesting terminology that reveals the level of your shallow thinking. A thirst for something is a desire... a thirst for blood... a thirst for wealth... a thirst for adventure... these are desired things. Oil is a necessity and it's absolutely "quenchable" if we satisfy the demand. Right now, we have to rely on oil from the Middle East... that's just a fact of life. We don't steal the oil, we pay for every drop. We're not buying oil someone else could use but if we didn't buy it someone else would. Oil is a vital resource.

We represent only 4% of the world's population but do 25% of its petroleum consumption. And, yes, the fact we use too much means we support bad government and keep sticking our dicks in the hornet's nest. and then wonder why guys like Saddam and Bin Laden turn on us when they were just supposed to keep the oil flowing.

So... We have to be over there because of the oil and our investments as well as promises to our allies. Of course radical terrorists who hate Jews and want them all dead, don't want us there. But their beef is not us being there... it's Jews still existing. So leaving there would not solve this problem in any way. Not unless we left and allowed them to exterminate all the Jews... then maybe that would solve the problem, for a while... until they decided to kill all Infidels next and that means you.

Yawn, guy. We didn't have a problem with that part of the world until it was clear to them we were the only thing keeping the Zionist entity afloat. And that's when they figured that they could use oil against us. the first "Oil Shock" came when we bailed out the Zionists in the Yom Kippur War, and the Arabs just shut off the spigot.

WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"

 

[Faun]

On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.

On the basis of the Hans Blix report to the UN. They never said SH had nothing and was hiding nothing. Blix said they could never be certain because SH was continually obstructing them or hindering their ability to inspect freely.

And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary.

Bullshit.

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.

The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites."

~ Hans Blix

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NF11618043.

On what basis can you call those inspections a failure? They were correct that SH had nothing and was hiding nothing.

Boss 11618398

And it's patently untrue that Saddam was "hiding nothing" because UNSCOM found evidence to the contrary.

It was UNMOVIC in 2003 and they found no evidence that Iraq was hiding WMD materials or programs. Bush cited secret intelligence on the final day before the invasion that he did not properly share with the inspectors so they could verify it or debunk it.

Why did Bush need to invoke 'secret' intelligence on March 17 2003 if it were true that UNMOVIC had already found evidence suitable for justifying a US led invasion. You are absolutely deprived of factual information on Iraq and your continuous endeavors to fabricate a fake narrative on top of fake narratives just shows how impossible it is for conservatives to defend and excuse Bush43's dumb invasion of Iraq when Iraq was being verified disarmed quite peacefully at the time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625364

Well I posted what Hans Blix reported to the UN as his role ended

You do understand that it was Bush43 that ended Dr Blix's role don't you. The facts remain that SH was hiding nothing and Dr Blix could have confirmed that reality within a few more months and then set up long term monitoring as was required in accordance with UNSC Resolution with regard to Iraq.

The shame is that it was a US President that obstructed and removed the inspections for no good reason. It was not the dictator of Iraq this time. And it is also a shame that people like you make up false narratives about what happened between October 2002 and March 17, 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11625364

That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!

Both inspection team leaders as well as the majority on the Council and most of the remaining UN member states have publicly rejected your blatant outbursts of unsupportable ignorance based opinion.

SH cooperated with the inspectors and offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US and UK WMD experts to come in to prove that Bush and Blair were wrong. He could have done nothing more than that to stop an obsessed and dumbfounded US President from attacking Iraq in the way that he did.

 

[JoeB131]

WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"

American Jews Finding It Harder to Like Israel - Bloomberg View

 

[Boss]

Boss 11625364

That Saddam was complying with UN1441 as prescribed by the resolution. He was NOT! ...He wasn't ever going to!

Both inspection team leaders as well as the majority on the Council and most of the remaining UN member states have publicly rejected your blatant outbursts of unsupportable ignorance based opinion.

SH cooperated with the inspectors and offered in December 2002 to let thousands of US and UK WMD experts to come in to prove that Bush and Blair were wrong. He could have done nothing more than that to stop an obsessed and dumbfounded US President from attacking Iraq in the way that he did.

You are just breathlessly defending one of the worst tyrant dictators in world history like he was your BFF!

SH certainly WAS NOT cooperating, as the continued reports from Dr. Blix reveal. Every report up to the final one, makes the point that he was not cooperating. Inspectors continued to get the same old runaround, the same obfuscations, the same complaining and protesting this or that, insisting on conditions, etc. UN1441 made it clear, he was to COOPERATE and he DIDN'T! ---PERIOD! ---END OF STORY!

You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for. It was NOT a "suggestion" that he cooperate with inspectors. As far as public comments made by people who opposed war after the fact, is totally irrelevant here. What we have to go on is the reports from Hans Blix to the UN on the results of his inspection efforts. I posted the final reports, I can go back and post from the ones before the finals if that makes things better for you, but consistently SH stonewalled, drug his feet, cast a shadow on interviews, blocked facilities, and did everything he could to thwart the efforts of the inspectors. He had become very good at playing this little "game" of going along and pretending to cooperate and then seeing how much defiance he could get away with.

But hey dude... I am really sorry that your best friend in the whole wide world got his ass busted by GWB! I hope one day you can get the taste of sour grapes out of your mouth and forgive us for taking out the tyrant scumbucket, but if you don't, that's alright too, I can live with you being pissed your whole life about how your buddy's fate turned out!

 

[Faun]

WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"

American Jews Finding It Harder to Like Israel - Bloomberg View

That article doesn't say, most American Jews consider Israel in embarrassment. What the hell is wrong with you? It doesn't say anything about "most American Jews." And what it does say of "many American Jews" is not embarrassment. It's disagreement with some of their policies.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11631772

. You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for.

Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades. You cannot make up your own facts about what SH did or did not do or pretend that Dr Blix said that SH was obstructing the 2003 inspections. Saddam made the ultimate offer to Bush and Blair that proves his intent was to fully cooperate with the UN as well as directly with the U.S. and UK on letting inspectors and CIA search wherever they wanted.

Posting the facts so that all lies about Iraq do not go unchallenged has nothing to do with supporting Saddam Hussein at all.

Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:

NF 11420054

Matthew 11376633

Because Saddam broke 1441 and was spitting in our face. Democrats at this time were more honest and our country was better off. The stupid part started when we started the nation building.

The stupid part starts when one is fooled by the absolutely untrue notion that Saddam broke 1441 in any way. It was Bush43 that decided to put an end to the 1441 inspections and there is absolutely no doubt about that reality. Saddam did not force the inspectors out as he did in 1998.

This Fox News report from December 22, 2002 puts the lie to your claim that SH broke 1441 and was spitting on our face. George W Bush spit on your face Matthew when he refused to send the CIA into Iraq to get first hand intelligence with the UN inspectors that were in the process of moving in at that time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Published December 22, 2002 FoxNews.com WASHINGTON – Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. <> Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. <> "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said. <> Al-Saadi complained that Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw based their criticisms of Iraq's weapons declaration on "old, rehashed reports" from what he called the previous "discredited" arms inspection program in the 1990s.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

Your claim is proven wrong. What do you intend to do to correct it?

How about you Boss? How do you square Saddam's offer with your bogus claims that Iraq did not cooperate under 1441. Bush rejected this immediate offer and refused to test it. Bush claims he wanted to avoid war if at all possible. Fox News - not me - reports how a war against Iraq could have been avoided and Iraq could be directly verified disarmed by the CIA right there on the ground in Iraq.

 

[Boss]

Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades. You cannot make up your own facts about what SH did or did not do or pretend that Dr Blix said that SH was obstructing the 2003 inspections. Saddam made the ultimate offer to Bush and Blair that proves his intent was to fully cooperate with the UN as well as directly with the U.S. and UK on letting inspectors and CIA search wherever they wanted.

Posting the facts so that all lies about Iraq do not go unchallenged has nothing to do with supporting Saddam Hussein at all.

Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:

I've NOT made up any damn thing! I posted what Hans Blix reported... Here is a more extensive account:

27 January 2003

I am obliged to note some recent disturbing incidents and harassment. For instance, for some time farfetched allegations have been made publicly that questions posed by inspectors were of intelligence character. While I might not defend every question that inspectors might have asked, Iraq knows that they do not serve intelligence purposes and Iraq should not say so.

On a number of occasions, demonstrations have taken place in front of our offices and at inspection sites.

The other day, a sightseeing excursion by five inspectors to a mosque was followed by an unwarranted public outburst. The inspectors went without any UN insignia and were welcomed in the kind manner that is characteristic of the normal Iraqi attitude to foreigners. They took off their shoes and were taken around. They asked perfectly innocent questions and parted with the invitation to come again.

Shortly thereafter, we receive protests from the Iraqi authorities about an unannounced inspection and about questions not relevant to weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they were not. Demonstrations and outbursts of this kind are unlikely to occur in Iraq without initiative or encouragement from the authorities. We must ask ourselves what the motives may be for these events. They do not facilitate an already difficult job, in which we try to be effective, professional and, at the same time, correct. Where our Iraqi counterparts have some complaint they can take it up in a calmer and less unpleasant manner.

The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programmes of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusion that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be "active". It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of "catch as catch can". Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence. It is not built upon the premise of trust. Rather, it is designed to lead to trust, if there is both openness to the inspectors and action to present them with items to destroy or credible evidence about the absence of any such items.

On 7 December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of some 12,000 pages in response to paragraph 3 of resolution 1441 (2002) and within the time stipulated by the Security Council. In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.

One might have expected that in preparing the Declaration, Iraq would have tried to respond to, clarify and submit supporting evidence regarding the many open disarmament issues, which the Iraqi side should be familiar with from the UNSCOM document S/1999/94 of January1999 and the so-called Amorim Report of March 1999 (S/1999/356). These are questions which UNMOVIC, governments and independent commentators have often cited.

While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current "unresolved disarmament issues" and "key remaining disarmament tasks" in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise.

They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM. Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq's letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues.

14 February 2003

In my earlier briefings, I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside…". The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December last year, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions. This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

UNMOVIC is not infrequently asked how much more time it needs to complete its task in Iraq. The answer depends upon which task one has in mind - the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and related items and programmes, which were prohibited in 1991 - the disarmament task - or the monitoring that no new proscribed activities occur. The latter task, though not often focused upon, is highly significant - and not controversial. It will require monitoring, which is "ongoing", that is, open-ended until the Council decides otherwise.

By contrast, the task of "disarmament" foreseen in resolution 687 (1991) and the progress on "key remaining disarmament tasks" foreseen in resolution 1284 (1999) as well as the "disarmament obligations", which Iraq was given a "final opportunity to comply with" under resolution 1441 (2002), were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

7 March 2003

Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections. It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence.

On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

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.

19 March 2003

May I add that in my last report I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged, but, as I noted in this Council on 7 March the value of the information thus provided must be soberly judged. Our experts have found so far that in substance only limited new information has been provided that will help to resolve remaining questions.

22 April 2003

To take a second example, while I have at no time suggested that the war was a foregone conclusion, I have stated as my impression that US patience with further inspection seemed to run out at about the same time as our Iraqi counterparts began to be proactive in proposing new investigations, supplying more explanations and names. I did not imply that there was any causal link. Had I looked for one, I would have assumed that the accelerating Iraqi activity was prompted by the feeling that time was running out. Indeed, both Dr. ElBaradei and I said as much to our counterparts at meetings in Baghdad.

5 June 2003

In paragraph 11, we note that the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for has not been shortened by inspections or Iraqi declarations, explanations or documentation. It was the task of the Iraqi side to present items unaccounted for, if they existed, or to present evidence – records, documents or other – convincing the inspectors that the items do not exist. If – for whatever reason – this is not done, the international community cannot have confidence that past programmes or any remaining parts of them have been terminated.

So there is the words of Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq-- Every report he gave included some detail about how Iraq was NOT COMPLYING WITH UN 1441!

The stupid part starts when one is fooled by the absolutely untrue notion that Saddam broke 1441 in any way. It was Bush43 that decided to put an end to the 1441 inspections and there is absolutely no doubt about that reality. Saddam did not force the inspectors out as he did in 1998.

NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's LAST FUCKING CHANCE! He broke it from the very start by not "immediately cooperating" and Hans Blix says as much in his reports! The resolution was not to allow inspectors in, it was ordering Saddam to cooperate with inspectors immediately and unconditionally... HE - DID - NOT!

 

[JoeB131]

WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"

American Jews Finding It Harder to Like Israel - Bloomberg View

That article doesn't say, most American Jews consider Israel in embarrassment. What the hell is wrong with you? It doesn't say anything about "most American Jews." And what it does say of "many American Jews" is not embarrassment. It's disagreement with some of their policies.

Zionism is Crazy Uncle Moshe who screams about Hitler to your Goyim friends at you Bat-Mitzvah.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11633182 quoting Dr Blix:

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

So you admit you have read but ignore that Dr Blux was overall saying that the inspections were not a failure and the period could be short - meaning the could be successful.,

That proactive cooperation by Iraq did arrive prior to the invasion according to Blix.:

Your link provided Dr Blix is telling you that plus the fact 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.

"They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues."


Blix said ", the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short" with a pro-active Iraq attitude. There was no definition of "immediate" in UN 1441 so you have provided proof from Dr Blux that Bush invaded Iraq by violating the terms of 1441 because practice cooperation on substance was acknowledged by Blix prior to the invasion. Cooperation on process was forthcoming from the start according to Blix from the beginning in paragraphs you did not cite.

And you still ignore the fact that Saddam offered Bush direct and immediate cooperation with the CIA in December 2002 as reported by Fox News. Bush could have had direct immediate cooperation but chose to reject it. Will you never acknowledge Saddam's early offer to fully cooperate immediately in accordance with 1441?

 

[Faun]

WTF?? Post your evidence that most American Jews consider Israel an "embarrassment?"

American Jews Finding It Harder to Like Israel - Bloomberg View

That article doesn't say, most American Jews consider Israel in embarrassment. What the hell is wrong with you? It doesn't say anything about "most American Jews." And what it does say of "many American Jews" is not embarrassment. It's disagreement with some of their policies.

Zionism is Crazy Uncle Moshe who screams about Hitler to your Goyim friends at you Bat-Mitzvah.

WTF does that have to do with your delusions about the article you posted not reflecting your earlier comment about most American Jews being embarrassed by Israel?