February 16, 2004
MASS DECEPTION COMMITTED
“We have lived through, been part of, party to, one of the greatest acts of mass deception in history,” writes Phillip Adams in his latest column, apparently referring to anybody who read it. Professor Bunyip once again exposes the hopelessly maladroit Adams; please read his entire post, an abbreviated version of which follows:
Adams, as he is prone to do, borrows from The New York Review of Books, but this time with a brilliant twist. To begin, let’s review George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech:
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
And so on, with Bush repeatedly providing sourced claims of WMD not accounted for by Saddam. These are crucial points to watch as Bush’s claims slowly migrate to Phillip’s column.
First, however, they are compressed by the NYRoB’s Thomas Powers, in a piece published last December:
Many of these claims were also cited by President Bush in his State of the Union message to Congress last January with additional hard detail — Iraq might have 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 30,000 prohibited bombs and warheads.
Now things get interesting. Adams, in a lapse astonishing even by his standards, takes that paragraph and attributes it to George W. Bush -- and, additionally, changes “might have” to “has”:
Here’s an extract from Bush’s State of the Union message, January 2003: "Iraq has 500 tonnes of chemical weapons, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 30,000 prohibited bombs and warheads ... ”
That isn’t an extract from Bush’s speech. Adams has made it up. Once again:
Bush: “Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials.
“The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material.”
Bush, according to Adams: “Iraq has 500 tonnes of chemical weapons, 25,000 litres of anthrax ... ”
Phillip Adams should be fired.
UPDATE. It gets worse. Reader Hugh W. has checked the other quotes in the Adams piece and turned up the following, to which I've added a few lines myself:
In Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, he said:
Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.
Adams, relying on the NYRoB’s account, edits this down to "... Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent." Thus, Powell's presentation of an estimate is turned into an assertion of fact.
Adams then quotes Powell as saying: "... Iraq retains a covert force of up to a few dozen scud-variant ballistic missiles". The actual words spoken were:
While inspectors destroyed most of the prohibited ballistic missiles, numerous intelligence reports over the past decade, from sources inside Iraq, indicate that Saddam Hussein retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud variant ballistic missiles.
Here, Adams has not only removed the ambiguity and the statement of sources which were in the actual remarks, he has changed the words "Saddam Hussein" to "Iraq" for no apparent reason.
The next section of the quote ("... Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA2 rocket engines") was originally "UNMOVIC has also reported that Iraq has illegally important 380 SA-2 rocket engines." A claim carefully attributed by Powell to a UN agency has become another out-of-context assertion, again through Adams relying on the NYRoB as his primary source.
And what about this alleged Paul Wolfowitz quote? Adams claims he said:
The CIA has collected solid facts about a decade of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida, facts about training of al-Qa’ida people ...
Wolfowitz never used the phrase "solid facts". Adams has again misplaced the words of NYRoB writer Powers:
Wolfowitz went on to claim that the CIA had collected solid "facts about a decade of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, facts about training of al-Qaeda people, including in chemical and biological weapons ..."
Here’s what Wolfowitz actually said:
So you weigh all of those things, and these facts that we have and the facts that are in the George Tenet letter, or facts about a decade of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, facts about Iraqi training of al Qaeda people, including in chemical and biological weapons, and facts about Iraq providing sanctuary for al Qaeda people, including senior al Qaeda people, including in Baghdad.
In the following NYRoB extract, Powers uses the phrase "it could be worse than we think" in seeking the meaning of a CIA claim:
In a bow to candor the agency specified just how much confidence it had in its "Key Judgments"—high confidence in some, moderate to low in others. It had high confidence in four—that Iraq "is continuing, and in some areas expanding," its programs for WMD; that "we are not detecting portions of these weapons programs," meaning it could be worse than we think; that Iraq "possesses...chemical and biological weapons"; and that Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in a year if it had fissionable material. The agency expressed low confidence in its ability to know when or if Saddam Hussein would use WMD or provide weapons to al-Qaeda.
After getting the Adams treatment, those words are now in the CIA’s mouth:
The CIA National Intelligence Estimate was less emphatic, admitting it didn’t know everything. But this didn’t matter because what it didn’t know only intensified the problem: "Iraq is continuing and in some areas expanding its programs for WMDs; that we are not detecting portions of these weapons programs means it could be worse than we think; Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in a year if it had fissionable material."
Got your excuses ready, Phillip?
Posted by Tim Blair at February 16, 2004 03:22 AMWhy would they fire him if they agree with him? Hell, Maureen Dowd didn't get fired: she's been deified by the Left. What's wrong a little "editing for clarity" if it fits the "Bush lied" meme?
Posted by: Spiny Norman at February 16, 2004 at 03:32 AMShould be, but won't be. He's done it before, nothings happened. Why should that change now?
Posted by: Quentin George at February 16, 2004 at 06:32 AMHas anyone thought that maybe the UN weapons inspectors were lying to preserve their jobs? What type of perks do weapons inspectors get? And isn't it the nature of beauracracies to be self-perpetuating?
Not that I'm upset about the removal of Saddam. Shoud've happend years ago, but better late than never.
Tim, This is a complete rip-off of the investigative work done by Stanley Gudgeon and you haven't even credited him in this post for his hard work. Shameful!
Posted by: Rex at February 16, 2004 at 08:35 AMI'd like to see Phillip Adams go, but I can't see it happenning, unfortunately.
Posted by: Jethro at February 16, 2004 at 09:54 AMLooks like we could all use one of them there bullshit detectors. Doesn't really bother me since I don't waste any time reading him any more.
Adams is a travesty to journalism and is the major blight on an otherwise excellent newspaper.
I agree. Adams should correct the error in his column next week or be fired.
Attributing as direct speech words that a person did not actually say (or altering the punctuation so that they mean something else), is in my book, one of the cardinal sins of jounalism.
Posted by: Mork at February 16, 2004 at 10:38 AMHas 'MediaWatch' been alerted? They'll surely roast Adams for this!
Won't they???
Tom
I just sent the following to the Australian:
Thank you for another great Philip Adams column! The devastating quotes, in President Bush's own words from the State Of The Union Address no less, will serve as endless fodder for when my right-wing "friends" blather on and on about UN resolutions, sanctions, and other "issues." I only wish Adams had mentioned Bush's praise of Halliburton in the same speech.
Posted by: Brian Jones at February 16, 2004 at 11:24 AMIt should look great following mine:
Phillip Adams "To death and taxes, add lies"; this is so very wrong:
"Here’s an extract from Bush’s State of the Union message, January 2003: "Iraq has 500 tonnes of chemical weapons, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 30,000 prohibited bombs and warheads ... ” "
Posted by: aaron at February 16, 2004 at 12:03 PMAdams made his millions in advertising. He is not a journalist. He just writes stuff.
Posted by: ilibcc at February 16, 2004 at 12:39 PMIs it your appointed task each week to donounce Philip Adams? If he's such a dinosaur, so ill informed, so ignored and irrelevant, why do you waste your breath? Are you just jealous that it should be you not him with so many column inces each week? Must be three times the size of your cut and paste stitch-ups in the Bulletin.
Is someone paying you to bore us with an Adam's antidote every monday? Are you really travelling that poorly, despite the Geelong Grammar lifelong ladder of opportunity?
If so can we take up a collection to pay you to stop?
Posted by: Miranda Divide at February 16, 2004 at 12:40 PMAnd what about that plastic turkey, hey? What about that?
Posted by: Nemesis at February 16, 2004 at 12:57 PMMedia Watch has looked at the article and concluded that it didn't make the grade:
1. The word "extract" in the context of Mr Adam's article actually means "summary".
2. Mr Adams has rewritten the information sufficiently so that he isn't using Mr Power's manner of expression.
3. The paragraph is a minor part of the article.
Posted by: Faux Media Watch at February 16, 2004 at 01:02 PM"If so can we take up a collection to pay you to stop?"
Miranda, if reading this blog is tormenting you so, why don't you go somewhere else? Preferably to hell, but I'll settle for anywhere but here.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 16, 2004 at 01:13 PMMiranda,
Like most of your arguments the one you present above is completely illogical. Adams should be attacked constantly, as should all lying lefty op-ed writers. The point is that Adams is so typical of the left: all piss and wind and no intellectual rigour whatsoever.
Jealousy has nothing to with the need to show up Adams and his ilk as the mendacious fools that they are.
The real jealousy in public life at the moment is that of the typical lefty who is pea-green with envy at the fact that the current US administration has actually had the courage to DO something and not just talk at endless conferences as the left would have done if we had been unfortunate enough to have them in power.
Posted by: Toryhere at February 16, 2004 at 01:27 PMYou may as well take up a collection for Tim anyway, Miranda, as we're already contributing to a compulsory one to pay Adams for his ABC gig.
Why should the right miss out on money if you're kind enough to co-ordinate evening up the score?
Posted by: ilibcc at February 16, 2004 at 01:47 PMThis isn't just a problem with a single quote in that article. I checked, and just about every one of the "quotes" in this article is a similar fabrication, with Adams either inserting words which were never there (eg Wolfowitz never said "solid facts) or editing out words which really were there in order to change the meaning ("A missile brigade outside Baghdad did X" became "...Baghdad did X". Maureen would be proud.) And then there are a few quotes which have been fucked around for no good reason at all - Adams changed the order of the words around in part of the Powell "quote" without changing the meaning at all - I think he just did it for the hell of it.
This article is a masterpiece of misquoting! It's fun to google for the original quotes and try to match them up to what Phil says.
Posted by: Jorge at February 16, 2004 at 01:53 PMYeah, I noticed that too. Not much is right about that article.
Context is never regarded.
Posted by: aaron at February 16, 2004 at 02:14 PMSummary goes from "maybe" to "has". That's a complete lie. It is a mis quote of our head of state on a heated issue. That should not be acceptable, but it is happening a lot.
Posted by: aaron at February 16, 2004 at 02:29 PM"Attributing as direct speech words that a person did not actually say (or altering the punctuation so that they mean something else), is in my book, one of the cardinal sins of jounalism."
Such as "imminent threat" Mork. Is that what you are referring to?.
Posted by: Gary at February 16, 2004 at 02:48 PMGary: are you referring to something I said? If so, can you be more specific?
Or do you just assume that I am responsible for everything with which you disagree?
Posted by: Mork at February 16, 2004 at 02:54 PMWhy won't you cover the facts on AWOL's documented case of mass deception, Tim?
There are some more details for the story when you get around to it here...http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1
What about the "45 minute" lie Rummie can't even remember his President spinning?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20
020926-19.html
Posted by: Sincerity Slips at February 16, 2004 at 03:33 PM
And SS, you are welcome to stuff your head back in your ass (you folks say "arse") anytime. Well, now, actually.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 16, 2004 at 03:35 PMThought for the Day: Just because Mr Adams is a liar, it does not necessarily follow that Mr Bush, Mr Powell, Mr Blair are not liars.
And the literalists amongst you should ponder this: Liars do not only use words. Inferences, innuendos, connections, linkages, tone and gesture can all make a lie.
Did they say the word "imminent"? It appears not. (Notwithstanding the 45 MINUTES debacle)
But did they create a sense of imminence? Yep. You betcha.
Did Bush and gang tell lies about Iraq's WMD. Of course they did. You all know it, and the rest of this argument is just playing semantics. It is a red herring. Or maybe a plastic turkey.
Sincerity,
Requests cost $25 each. The PayPal is on your left.
Otherwise, you're free to start your own site and write about these issues whenever you feel like it.
Posted by: tim at February 16, 2004 at 04:14 PMThere also alot of missing aerosol which was delivered in 02 and hasn't been accounted for.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 16, 2004 at 04:21 PMBoy, I'm glad Nemesis is on the side of common sense and pragmatism regarding these issues, or he might resort to finishing his arguments by saying that he's right and that we all know it.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 16, 2004 at 04:23 PMSo articulate, Andrea. You are the Queen of smackdown.
Nemesis said... Did they say the word "imminent"? It appears not. (Notwithstanding the 45 MINUTES debacle)Not only did the Bush Administration say that Iraq was not an imminent threat, but Pres. Bush himself said he would not wait until that threat was imminent.But did they create a sense of imminence? Yep. You betcha.
Did Bush and gang tell lies about Iraq's WMD. Of course they did. You all know it, and the rest of this argument is just playing semantics. It is a red herring. Or maybe a plastic turkey.
As well, the "45 minute" claim was not a claim that an attack was imminent, but simply an estimate on how long it would take for the arming of a SCUD like missile with a chemical or biological warhead.
Any sense created that an attack by Iraq was imminent was merely a fabrication of your own imagination. At no time whatsoever did the Bush Administration or 10 Downing Street ever suggest, imply or hint that Iraq was an imminent threat.
And if you believe that Bush et al told lies about Iraqs weapons capabilities, does that too mean the UN, Russians, Germans, French and Chinese also lied?
Just admit you hate George W. Bush and save me the time of proving you wrong.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 16, 2004 at 04:51 PM"Is someone paying you to bore us with an Adam's antidote every monday?"
Seems that people who *are* being paid to watch the media have not done their jobs. Adams and all other 'journalists' SHOULD be held accountable for getting their facts straight. If they misquote, there should be a retraction. Has a retraction been published yet?
It's necessary for bloggers to point out the lies our various media publish as truths. The bloggers do it because they love the truth, not because they are getting money for it.
If the 'journalists' would stop lying, get their facts correct, and admit mistakes, bloggers wouldn't need to point out their errors.
I don't include all journalists in with the subset of 'journalists' who lie, or are just incompetent. There are journalists who want to tell an accurate story and quote correctly.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at February 16, 2004 at 07:46 PMIt is interesting that so many readers regard the fabrication of quotes by an influential journalist as inoffensive, indeed unremarkable.
But let's not rush to criticize; instead, let's try to understand. Faced with a gap between the facts and what they think should be the facts, some people will always shrug--and choose the latter. For them, mendacity is commendable and "sexing up" is admirable. After all, since at least the 1930s, such intellectual gimcrackery is all that has held the leftwing worldview together.
Like a ramshackle carnival ride, LeftThink continues to whirl round and round, powered by the eternally renewable fuels of theory and dogmatism. But it can do so only by staying well clear of the brutal and bumpy "facts on the ground." Should it ever collide with these, the whole contraption would simply fall to bits.
Hence the left's mantra-- shun reason, scoff at fact-checking, mock evidence. ONLY BELIEVE.
So now "Dowdification" goes Down Under! Ever notice that you never see Phillip Adams and Maureen Dowd in the same photo?
Posted by: Mike at February 16, 2004 at 09:07 PMInteresting how it seems the only people who've been shown beyond any doubt to be lying (ie: knowingly and deliberately making false statements) are those who are themselves accusing Bush, Blair and Howard of lying. First Gilligan, then Dowd, now Adams.
Then of course there was Andrew Wilkie, who in late 2003 told a Senate committee "The Prime Minister lied to the Australian people when he said XYZ", only to have Senator Robert Ray (ie: a political opponent of the Prime Minister) point out that the Prime Minister never actually said "XYZ".
PS: Note that I've used "XYZ" because I can't recall the precise wording of Wilkie's false accusation, and unlike Gilligan, Dowd, Adams , don't feel the need to invent other people's quotes to make my case.
Posted by: ab at February 16, 2004 at 10:18 PMBig media's credibility is shot. Blogs have become indispensible.
Posted by: chip at February 16, 2004 at 11:53 PMWell once more we have seen Media Watch come and go for another week without a single word about the Phat Phuck himself. Must be fun to spend an entire week researching all the Conservative Correspondants to find one you can bag for 15 minutes and get paid for it.
Posted by: Todd at February 17, 2004 at 12:34 AMBy the way, "Sense of Imminence" would be a really good name for a techno band.
Posted by: Bruce at February 17, 2004 at 12:39 AMThe entire text of what Sincerity Slips keeps going on and on about: "The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both elected branches of government."
Yup. That's completely true.
"Elected officials are working for a strong Congressional resolution that sends a clear message: UN Security Council demands must be followed and the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced."
Yup. Making it all legal and stuff. Following up the UN's own damn resolutions about Saddam. Absolutely true.
"The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year."
The Iraqi regime COULD. COULD. COULD. He didn't say or write WILL. Plus, I'm pretty goddam certain what with the recent revelations about Libya and Pakistan, ol' Moustache Boy was damn well seeking a fucking nuclear bomb.
"Iraq's regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups -- there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq. The regime also practices the rape of women and the torture of dissenters and their children as methods of intimidation."
Absolutely all true.
"The President has made it clear: we refuse to live in a future of fear. We are determined to build a future of security and peace for the world."
Also all true, all blindingly obvious and absofuckinglutely the desired outcome except to a fucking MORON like Sincerity Slips, who, like a tiny terrier, fastens his pointy little teeth into one fucking pretend-issue and proceeds to growl and bark and shake said issue around until he tires himself out and pees on the carpet.
Wish I had a rolled-up newspaper with your name on it, Sincerity Slips.
Posted by: ushie at February 17, 2004 at 05:11 AMushie, and think Sincerity Slips could use a voluminous and well sourced history book instead of a rolled-up newspaper.
Hit her with it or let 'er read it - the history book would be a superior use for either choice.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 07:53 AMHey Dwayne,
There's a subtle difference that seems to elude you. Unlike Bush, the French, Chinese, Russians etc, did not go to war on the back of the lies. Or had you missed that piece of the puzzle?
Hate Bush? Don't know the man. Hate what he does? Absolutely.
Posted by: Nemesis at February 17, 2004 at 08:16 AMHey Nemesis,
Here's subtle for you...
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
- Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of
Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
- Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore
international peace and security in the area."
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
- Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
- Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
- Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its
illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
- Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological
weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and
all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
- Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons
or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or
manufacturing facilities.
- Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering
harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a
range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production
facilities."
- Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass
destruction.
- Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
- Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's
nuclear weapons program.
- Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
- Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations
to operate in Iraq.
- Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and
others.
- Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
- "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of
which threaten international peace and security."
- Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
- Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations
to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
- "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
- "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
- Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council
deems Iraq in full compliance.
- Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its
weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access.
- Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and
related materials and facilities.
- Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights
throughout Iraq.
- Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and
IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
- "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
- Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to
threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
- Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
- Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass
destruction to the UN and IAEA.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
- "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear
violations" of previous UN resolutions.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
- "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN
inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687,
707, 715, and 1060.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi
officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
- "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN
inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and
1060.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
- Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi
officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
- "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions,
including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN
inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
- Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation
would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
- "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with"
UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention"
of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
- Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
- "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with
UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
- Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with
UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
- Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections
Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
- Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access"
to Iraqi officials and facilities.
- Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
- Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its
people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security
Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN
Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The
list of statements includes:
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998
There are 12+ year of UNSC resolutions that say Iraq was a threat, but your words suggest that all these resolutions are based on lies. The facts are not on your side, which consequently makes YOU the liar - not George Walker Bush. Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 09:09 AM
France, Russia, and China didn't go to war because Saddam was paying them off in his "oil for palaces/influence" fund. Why would they give up on a good deal like that?
Dwayne, good summary. Sort neat to see it all laid out like that. You should also publish the list of US democrats and world leader condemning Saddam and his cronies. Intersting that the words are almost the same.
Posted by: capt joe at February 17, 2004 at 09:25 AMDamn, Dwayne -- uselful comment, but it nearly broke the post. (Resaving it seemed to solve the problem. Hey, it could have been this wonky new browser I'm using -- Mozilla Foxfire -- so don't get upset. Still, be gentle!)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 17, 2004 at 10:44 AMHey, I wonder if Tim is as upset when the National Review selectively edits a quote so that it misrepresents the speaker, which he can read about here.
Somehow, I suspect not.
Posted by: Mork at February 17, 2004 at 10:58 AMThanks for the kudo's Capt. Joe and Andrea.
One should note that I only listed resolutions from the 1990's and excluded everything else.
One other thing that everyone should note is that many of these resolution are simply resolutions that "condems" or "deplores" Saddam refusal to honor past resolutions.
Can anyone honestly say that Saddam was honoring any of the resolutions concerning Iraq that had been passed since Sept. 11th - principly UNSCR 1441?
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 11:01 AMMork said, "Hey, I wonder if Tim is as upset when the National Review selectively edits a quote so that it misrepresents the speaker, which he can read about here ... Somehow, I suspect not."
I wonder if Mork from Ork has been on this planet long enough to comprehend the concept of balanced reporting.
You know - that whole reporting both sides type of thing?
Well, since there is a lack of balance in reports that are presented by global media outlets and the likes of TNR, there is a need for bloggers like TIm Blair to provide that balance.
In other words, Tim Blair doesn't need to speak out about misquotes or quotes taken out of context, because the likes of TNR have been vetting such essays all along.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 11:22 AMerr...In other words, Tim Blair doesn't need to speak out about misquotes or quotes taken out of context, because the likes of TNR have been vetting such essays all along.
correction...In other words, Tim Blair doesn't need to speak out about misquotes or quotes taken out of context by conservatives, because the likes of TNR have been vetting such essays all along.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 11:23 AMStop it Dwayne, you're wrecking the entire trollish campaign of misdirection here.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 17, 2004 at 11:53 AMheh heh heh...
you said troll.
No but serious Sortelli - I don't get it. ;-)
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 12:14 PMI'm just saying that they are trying VERY HARD to distract everyone from any issue raised in this blog by running through the comments with their pants pulled down and BUSH LIED painted in red letters on their rumps, and you keep bringing us back to the here and now by pointing out the facts.
Stop it!!!
Posted by: Sortelli at February 17, 2004 at 03:47 PMI apologize - if I read you correctly, you gain a certain amount of enjoyment toying with these trolls. Well, if true, I must then apologize more profusely, because I must admit I cannot help nor stop myself. I feel an uncontrollable need to prove the trolls wrong. It's a compulsion; dare I say addiction; an obsession even. I cannot help himself.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 05:10 PMWell, that's nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, I should buy you a drink.
Posted by: Sortelli at February 17, 2004 at 06:18 PMI'm just a stupid American - from Texas no less - so just send a beer to Dallas. Ok?
Posted by: Dwayne at February 17, 2004 at 06:55 PMTrolls are amuzing. The thing is, all their arguments have been debunkend in previous posts. They just move to a new post, bringing the same old stuff and hope a new reader is watching. Occasionlly they find new "evidence" for their "LIED" and "MISLEAD" campaings, but it is increasingly obscur and irrelevant. Check out the archives and dive into some post with lots of comments.
Posted by: aaron at February 18, 2004 at 04:12 AMAaron, I totally agree.
One need not dig through archives to see this; all one needs to is look at these charges that Pres. Bush was AWOL.
Posted by: Dwayne at February 18, 2004 at 04:24 AMAlby, damn good posting - the best comment I have read on the Left ever! Much appreciated. In particular, I have never understood what motivates Phillip Adams - he is no fool. But I fear his loathing of John Howard has distorted his reasoning, and I do wish 'The Australian' would dispense with his services. No hope of that of course, but one can dream!