Although the Shrub has hopped up the war talk this week, the reality of the situation is that Saddam is complying with U.N. demands — now more than ever.
Here’s a story that got out Sunday night on my local station KTVU Channel 2 before the nation-wide war push got going:
Update On Iraq Situation (Lo-Res – 20 MB)
Rumsfeld family tie is first victim of war
The American defence chief Donald Rumsfeld has been disowned by his anti-war relatives in north Germany, reports Tony Paterson
By Tony Paterson for The Telegraph.
The Rumsfelds of Weyhe-Sudweyhe, an unremarkable red-brick suburb of Bremen, were once proud of their long-lost cousin, America’s secretary of state for defence – but no longer.
Like many Germans, they are appalled by Donald Rumsfeld’s hawkish attitude to military action against Saddam Hussein. About 18,000 anti-war demonstrators marched through Munich yesterday to protest at his presence at an international security conference – chanting slogans such as “No room for Rumsfeld!”
“We think it is dreadful that Donald Rumsfeld is out there pushing for a war against Iraq,” Karin Cecere (nee Rumsfeld), 59, said from her two-up, two-down home last week. “We are embarrassed to be related to him,” she told The Telegraph.
Margarete Rumsfeld, her 85-year-old mother, was equally dismissive: “We don’t have much to do with him anymore. Nowadays he’s just the American defence secretary to us, but for God’s sake, he’d better not start a war,” she added.
An Alternative to War
By Jimmy Carter — Former U.S. President and Nobel Laureate
In Washington, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden, and the concentration of public statements on his international terrorist network is mostly limited to still-unproven allegations about its connection with Iraq. The worldwide commitment and top priority of fighting terrorism that was generated after September 11th has been attenuated as Iraq has become the preeminent obsession of political leaders and the general public.
In addition to the need to re-invigorate the global team effort against international terrorism, there are other major problems being held in abeyance as our nation’s foreign policy is concentrated on proving its case for a planned attack on Iraq. We have just postponed again the promulgation of the long-awaited “road map” that the U.S. and other international leaders have drafted for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a festering cancer and the root cause of much of the anti-American sentiment that has evolved throughout the world. At the same time, satellite observations of North Korea have indicated that nuclear fuel rods, frozen under international surveillance since 1994, are now being moved from the Yongbyon site to an undisclosed destination, possibly for reprocessing into explosives. It is imperative that this threat to Asian stability be met with aggressive diplomacy.
Since it is obvious that Saddam Hussein has the capability and desire to build an arsenal of prohibited weapons and probably has some of them hidden within his country, what can be done to prevent the development of a real Iraqi threat? The most obvious answer is a sustained and enlarged inspection team, deployed as a permanent entity until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council determine that its presence is no longer needed. For almost eight years following the Gulf War until it was withdrawn four years ago, UNSCOM proved to be very effective in locating and destroying Iraq’s formidable arsenal, including more than 900 missiles and biological and chemical weapons left over from their previous war with Iran.
Even if Iraq should come into full compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam would have no choice except to comply, the results would be certain, military and civilian casualties would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous worldwide support, and the United States could regain its leadership in combating the real threat of international terrorism.”
Here’s the actual public report by Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix.
US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston for NY Times Agencies (Australia)
In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States’ campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
“Whatever we say will be used by some,” Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be “as factual and conscientious” as possible. “I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place.”
Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.
Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.
You probably didn’t hear a whole lot about the vital information contained in this report that was published on Tuesday because of all the Shrub’s war mongering going on at the same time (that, in all fairness, had to be reported on, I suppose).
So now that that’s all over…Meanwhile, back here in reality, some of us would like to know what the inspectors over there in Iraq actually had to say in their report to the U.N. Security Council. (And it’s on FOX News online, of all places 🙂
The document also provides a great backgrounder on the last eleven years of weapons inspections in Iraq, right up until yesterday.
There’s good news and bad news — but at least you can read it all here for yourselves. (Thanks Pat.)
Hans Blix’s Report to the U.N.
Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.
In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.
Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues
I love it. Even Schwarzkopf couldn’t, in good conscience, not speak out against this war. Thanks Norman. It means a lot.
Desert Caution
Once ‘Stormin’ Norman,’ Gen. Schwarzkopf Is Skeptical About U.S. Action in Iraq
By Thomas E. Ricks for the Washington Post.
And don’t get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration’s hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq’s alleged weapons programs.
“The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?” he says. “Now, having said that, I don’t know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, ‘Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,’ I guess I would like to have better information.”
He hasn’t seen that yet, and so — in sharp contrast to the Bush administration — he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: “I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive.”
This isn’t just any retired officer speaking. Schwarzkopf is one of the nation’s best-known military officers, with name recognition second only to his former boss, Secretary of State Powell. What’s more, he is closely allied with the Bush family. He hunts with the first President Bush. He campaigned for the second, speaking on military issues at the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia and later stumping in Florida with Cheney, who was secretary of defense during the 1991 war.
But he sees the world differently from those Gulf War colleagues. “It’s obviously not a black-and-white situation over there” in the Mideast, he says. “I would just think that whatever path we take, we have to take it with a bit of prudence.”
More peaceful protest and cooperation between Cops and Citizens — this time in Pittsburgh, PA:
Peaceful weekend pleases police, marchers
By Bob Batz Jr. for the Post-Gazette.
(Thanks, David.)
Key was communication, which the police started
weeks ago with organizers from the Thomas
Merton Center and the Pittsburgh Organizing Group.
Valenta also cited cooperation between city police
and other agencies, including the state police,
Allegheny County Police, Carnegie Mellon
University police and University of Pittsburgh
police, as well as the FBI and the federal
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
He said about 70 officers staffed Saturday’s
parade through the South Side, and about
100 covered Sunday’s rally and march in
Oakland.
Police estimated at least 1,500 participants
Saturday and 5,000 Sunday, making for
what many agreed was the biggest anti-war
protest here in three decades…
“It’s certainly rewarding to know that they
held true to their word, and I think we held
true to ours,” Valenta said. “When you can
build a rapport like that, if events happen
in the future, both sides know they can trust
each other.”
“We are deeply grateful for the police” who
“went beyond the call of duty” to enable
participants to exercise their constitutional
rights, Vining said.
Vining said the convergence went “beyond
our expectations.”
“I had people say it gave them hope for
Pittsburgh as a community — that we can
actually organize something. It was not a
football game kind of rah-rah, but a unifying
thing.”
(I guess the brits are right — the Shrub’s Administration is only interested in bodies…)
I am growing increasingly concerned about our boys overseas (the 150,000 troops or so that are already there).
How well can the Shrub be planning on treating them if he’s already planning mass graves for them (per a potential bioterrorist threat)?
Pentagon Eyes Mass Graves Option Would Fight Contamination After Bioterror Deaths
By Greg Seigle for The Denver Post.
The bodies of U.S. soldiers killed by chemical or biological weapons in Iraq or future wars may be bulldozed into mass graves and burned to save the lives of surviving troops, under an option being considered by the Pentagon.
Since the Korean War, the U.S. military has taken great pride in bringing home its war dead, returning bodies to next of kin for flag-draped, taps-sounding funerals complete with 21-gun salutes.
But the 53-year-old tradition could come to an abrupt halt if large numbers of soldiers are killed by chemical or biological agents, according to a proposal quietly circulating through Pentagon corridors.
Rumsfeld’s Remarks Draw Anger in France
Rumsfeld downplayed France and Germany’s reluctance, saying he was confident that other NATO members would come together behind the United States.
“Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem … but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they’re not with France and Germany on this. They’re with the United States,” he said.
In responding to a reporter’s question about French and German qualms, Rumsfeld hinted the United States would turn to new NATO members in Eastern Europe for support.
“You’re thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t,” he said. “I think that’s old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members.”
Washington’s European allies are deeply divided over the possibility of war, with the French and Germans opposing any rush toward military action while the United States and Britain intensify their military buildup on Iraq’s borders.
The Bush administration accuses Iraq of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Russia and China have also expressed reservations about going to war against Iraq. On Thursday, China said it supports French efforts to find a peaceful solution, underlining the challenge the United States would face if it seeks U.N. Security Council support for military action.
“We have always stood for a diplomatic and political resolution of the Iraqi issue,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.
