Friday, February 07, 2003

Russia Opposes New U.N. Iraq Resolution "We do not see today any grounds for passing a U.N. resolution that would envisage or sanction the use of force against Iraq," Ivanov said following a meeting with the Finnish foreign minister. [AP World News] United Nations Resolution 1441 provides Iraq with "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations". In order to claim that there are no grounds to pass another resolution authorizing the use of force, we would have to accept that: The intelligence data that Colin Powell presented to the United Nations on Wednesday is false. Iraq's assertion is correct that it does not have any remaining documentation explaining what happened to the weapons of mass destruction it was proved to have had before 1998. One of the most authoritarian states in the world cannot force its own scientists to be interviewed by inspectors without a government monitor. Iraq's refusal to allow overflights does not violate the section of the resolution which states "UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;" The opponents of war are being just as disingenuous in their opposition to a second resolution as the Bush administration has been in saying it wanted to work through the United Nations to resolve this situation. The Bush administration has repeatedly said it will go to war with or without the consent of the Security Council. In the same way, France and Germany, and perhaps Russia, seem committed to opposing a resolution regardless of what facts are presented. Closing your eyes to the truth will not make it go away. "No" is not a valid argument. I want there to be a way out of this mess without war. But unfortunately, I haven't heard any alternatives from the members of the international community opposed to war which make any sense.   2:18:05 PM

Different Man, Different Moment. That "moment" had an obvious purpose: containing the Soviet Union and maintaining peace. It worked, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. This moment has a different purpose: war. The Bush administration clearly rejects the idea of containing Iraq through committed monitoring by the United Nations, even though this course is the better option. [New York Times] In general, I haven't been impressed by the arguments the anti-war movement has made in opposition to a war against Iraq. "No" is not a valid argument. And I haven't heard a well-thought out alternative to the Bush administration's plans from those opposed to the war. Until now. Adlai Stevenson III makes a good case for continuing to contain Saddam through the inspections regime, rather than going to war.   1:33:42 PM

Bush Urges U.N. to 'Make Up Its Mind' on Iraq. On his way into the Treasury Building, Mr. Bush had one last comment. "I have said that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," Mr. Bush said. "And I mean it." [New York Times] I can understand why the rest of the world has so much resentment of the United States. Mr. Bush is telling the United Nations that it needs to make a decision quickly, and that only one decision is acceptable: war. He continues to state that the United Nations will become "irrelevant" if it doesn't agree with him on how to enforce Resolution 1441, and backs it up by the threat to make it irrelevant by going to war regardless of what its decision is. It seems to me that the only reason the United Nations would be irrelevant is that the United States would make it so, not Iraq, and not the Security Council.   1:25:42 PM

IsThatLegal? responds to Howard Coble's claim that if his assertions that Franklin Roosevelt placed Japanese Americans into concentration camps for their own safety could be proven false, he would apologize. I would encourage anyone interested in the history behind the Japanese internment to read the response above. But most importantly, I would encourage Mr. Coble to read it. We expect his apology shortly.   10:52:33 AM

Howard Coble is on Apology #2: Coble said Thursday he intended no offense, but still believes he was right. "I apologize if I offended anybody," he said. "I certainly did not intend to offend anybody. "I certainly intended no harm or ill will toward anybody. I still stand by what I said ... that, in no small part, it (internment) was done to protect the Japanese-Americans themselves." He's following in Trent Lott's footsteps exactly. The next apology, #3, will be under intense pressure for him to resign, and will be CLOSE to a real apology. But it won't be until apology #4, when he is about to be removed from his subcommittee chairmanship, that he will give a "real" apology.   8:14:31 AM