Douglas Feith at it again - Page 5 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #41 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 04:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
But, Bot, we also know Clinton served his entire second term as President, and he did not have to entertain or veto a UN resolution to stop the oil embargo, so the secenario you depicted above, while presented to sound reasonable, is pure, crystal ball gazing speculation on your part, Bot. And, your suggestion of why he sent US forces into the former Yugoslavia but NOT into Rwanda sounds an awful lot like more crystal ball speculation to me. Given Clinton served as President to the term limit in the Constitution, and he never had to address a UN resolution to end the sanctions, what was the context of your statement about the French and Russians making noises about ending the sanctions, if not to merely add unfounded inuendo about the circumstances, commonly known as spin or hype?


Interesting theory. I doubt any US President would have eliminated the sanctions entirely in a one sided concession to pressure from anyone. My crystal ball says giving the Iraqi people a break by ending certain sanctions could have been negotiated along with more weapons inspector access and greater restrictions on international trade for WMD materials and technical resources. And, given 20-20 hindsight, I would have been happy to develop an Iraq that was controlled by the UN but not a friendly sponge for Islamic fanatics from Iran. Oh yeah, that was what Saddam already represented! Oh well. Jim
We remember things differently.

Oh well.

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #42 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 04:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
We remember things differently.

Oh well.

B
How true! I had no recollection of any of your crystal ball gazings on this subject until you posted them here. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #43 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 04:24 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
I pulled this out of my crystal ball. Want more?

B


Saddam Yields, but Could Gain From Western Disunity : No Clear Outcome Over Iraq
By Joseph Fitchett International Herald Tribune

Tuesday, February 24, 1998

In many ways, it was a model of gunboat diplomacy: The United States deployed an armada, concerned nations cajoled the recalcitrant Iraqis, and Baghdad backed down on UN arms inspections.

In other ways, skilled negotiators demonstrated the scope of peaceful diplomacy. The deal brokered by the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan — if approved by the Security Council — obtained Iraqi compliance, the result officially sought by all sides.
But the outcome did not feel as comfortably clear-cut or as cathartic as that.

Western and Arab diplomats said Monday that the process seemed to have opened a gap between the United States and Britain as proponents of force, and other countries, notably France and Russia, that stressed the need of avoiding military action at almost any cost.

This good cop-bad cop approach proved to be a formula for success in this crisis, the diplomats said. But they warned that divergences in emphasis might turn into a flaw that

the Iraqi regime could exploit when Washington seeks to rally continuing international efforts to contain Saddam Hussein.

Western governments did achieve their technical objective: getting Saddam Hussein to let the United Nations destroy or account for all his weapons of mass destruction.
From the U.S. viewpoint, the outcome seems to guarantee the completion of the UN inspections designed to provide as much information as possible about what Iraq had accomplished — and with whose help — in developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles.

If the confrontation had escalated to military strikes, much of the evidence might have been destroyed, and the chances of getting Baghdad to agree to the re-entry of UN inspectors would have been slim.

In that sense, the diplomatic deal is the best outcome for avoiding upheaval in the Gulf, even short-lived, and maintaining collective Western unity.

But Mr. Saddam also has reason to be satisfied. Even if only marginally, he has succeeded in easing the U.S. grip on his nation, according to diplomats in Paris from Arab countries hostile to the Iraqi leader.

As a result of the confrontation, progress in completing the arms inspections will be constantly exposed to sharper international scrutiny. When UN specialists wanted to give Iraq a clean bill of health in the nuclear area last summer, the Clinton administration blocked the move lest it ease Iraq's isolation.

In future, U.S. diplomats acknowledged, Washington will find it harder to maintain these tough unilateral tactics at the United Nations to keep maximum pressure on Iraq. Now France, Russia and other countries have promised to take a closer interest in the process, a change bound to increase the psychological pressure for accelerating the job.

The inspections might have been nearing their end anyway if Iraq had cooperated. Richard Butler, the commission's head, said recently that "we know the remaining questions to ask and we know that the Iraqis know the answers."

So within months, especially if more teams are put on the job, Iraq could have a clean bill of health. Without bending UN rules, Iraq's challenge has almost certainly brought the end of sanctions closer, Arab and European diplomats said.
The prospect alone is enough to improve Iraq's borrowing power and enhance Mr. Saddam's leverage.

For the United States and its European and Arab allies, the tactics that worked in this crisis — notably, U.S. readiness to wield the stick while most allies emphasized carrots — may backfire if they harden into divergent policies, diplomats said Monday.
Beyond finishing the current disarmament program in Iraq, as now seems feasible, the United Nations is then committed to enforcing long-term surveillance.

The Clinton administration "is never likely to have anything to do with Iraq as long as Saddam is alive," Samuel Berger, the national security adviser, said last weekend.
Echoing U.S. claims, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook of Britain cited the threat of military pressure as the key factor. "It is a justification of the strategy we have been pursuing: If there had been no pressure on Saddam we would not have got a deal."
In contrast, France — and to a greater degree, Russia — make no secret of their view that Iraq has the potential for becoming a political and commercial partner. Paris has claimed credit for "never giving up on peace," according to Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine. He said this month that even if Iraq left the world no choice but armed force, France would not take part in the attack or provide military support.
French voters massively opposed air strikes, and the French authorities did almost nothing to persuade the public that Iraq's weapons programs posed a serious international threat — even though the French research laboratory specializing in chemical weapons corroborated the UN commission's alarmed conclusions about Iraq's capabilities.

The fact that a political solution now seems likely to be acceptable, even hailed in Washington, should promptly deflate the wilder caricatures of a trigger-happy superpower looking for a fight to draw attention from President Bill Clinton's domestic problems.

Even so, public opinion, especially outside the United States, seemed to lose confidence in Washington's ability to handle the crisis as the confrontation dragged on.

Partly a public relations problem, U.S. analysts said, the lack of solidarity with Washington may reflect a deeper trend in which European and Arab countries, conscious of their own shrinking capability to cope with foreign crises, tend to consider that force is not an effective option.
Botnst is offline  
post #44 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 04:28 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
U.S. Fought Surprise Inspections
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 14, 1998; Page A01


The Clinton administration has intervened secretly for months, most recently last Friday, to dissuade United Nations weapons teams from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq because it wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad government, according to knowledgeable American and diplomatic accounts.

The American interventions included an Aug. 4 telephone call between Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Butler, executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission responsible for Iraq's disarmament, who spoke on a secure line from the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain. As a team of specialists stood poised in Baghdad, according to persons acquainted with the call, Albright urged Butler to rescind closely held orders for the team to mount "challenge inspections" at two sites where intelligence leads suggested they could uncover forbidden weapons components and documents describing Iraqi efforts to conceal them.

After a second high-level caution from Washington last Friday, Butler canceled the special inspection and ordered his team to leave Baghdad. The disclosure was made yesterday by officials who regarded the abandoned leads as the most promising in years and objected to what they described as the American role in squelching them.

U.S. efforts to forge a go-slow policy in Iraq have coincided with the announcement by the Baghdad government that it would halt nearly all cooperation with the U.N. commission, known as UNSCOM, and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Administration. The two panels are responsible for ridding Iraq of ballistic missiles and biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The behind-the-scenes campaign of caution is at odds with the Clinton administration's public position as the strongest proponent of unconditional access for the inspectors to any site in Iraq. Led by the United States, and backed by American threats of war, the U.N. Security Council has demanded repeatedly since 1991 -- most recently in Resolution 1154 on March 2 -- that Iraq give "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" cooperation to the inspection teams. That last resolution, at U.S. insistence, promised "the severest consequences for Iraq" for further defiance and was voted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which is legal grounds for use of military force.

Last week, as Albright reportedly sought to rein in Butler, the administration was retreating from the vows it made six months ago to strike immediately and with significant military force if Iraq failed to honor a Feb. 23 agreement that resolved the last such crisis over inspections. At that time, administration spokesmen described a "snap back" policy of automatic military retaliation if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein violated his agreement with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Now the administration argues, as White House spokesman P.J. Crowley said yesterday, that Iraq is proposing "a cat-and-mouse game" and "we're not going to play." He said the United States would continue its "encouragement" of Iraq's compliance with its obligations and would not allow economic sanctions to be lifted until it does so.

Albright, in a one-sentence statement issued through a spokesman, said last night: "U.S. policy has been to fully support UNSCOM in its inspections and I have never told Ambassador Butler how to do his job." She and those speaking for her declined to answer further questions about her Aug. 4 "private discussions" with Butler and would not address specifically whether she had advised him to cancel the planned raids.

Butler, reached by telephone yesterday, said any suggestion that he received orders from Albright would be "a very considerable distortion of what took place." He added, "No member of the [Security] Council, including the United States, has purported to give me instructions. They all recognize that their job is policy, my job is operations."
Botnst is offline  
post #45 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 04:29 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
continued ....

Asked whether Albright urged him or advised him not to go forward, Butler said any answer "would be a very slippery slope" in which "I'd have to tell you what the Russian ambassador said, what the French ambassador said. Forgive me, but I won't get into that." Asked to confirm he spoke to Albright last week, he said, "I'm becoming concerned now about this line of inquiry."

Beginning in June, according to knowledgeable officials, the U.N. inspectors developed secret plans -- withheld from most members of their own staff -- for surprise raids at two sites where they believed they would find evidence of forbidden chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic missiles capable of deploying them. The officials declined to describe the sites further, noting that they are still in operation.

In a little-known practice that all parties are loathe to acknowledge, Butler dispatched senior lieutenants to London and Washington in late June to provide highly classified briefings on the intended inspection "targets," the sources said. Formally, Butler reports equally to all members of the Security Council and does not give them advance operational plans. But one official said he understands "it's suicide to go forward with an inspection like this" without informing his principal sponsors, the United States and Britain.

The two governments, according to knowledgeable officials, acknowledged to Butler's deputies that UNSCOM had the right to make its own decisions. But they worked in concert in the weeks that followed to dissuade Butler from going forward with the inspection plan.

After consultations in Washington, Derek Plumbly, director of the British Foreign Office's Middle East Command, flew to New York for a July 15 meeting with Butler. He told the Australian diplomat in no uncertain terms that the time was not ripe for a provocative challenge to Iraq, in part because Baghdad was still cooperating, ostensibly, on a "schedule of work" intended to resolve open questions, the sources said.

Shortly after that meeting, U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, the second-ranking delegate to the United Nations, called in Butler for a consultation in which he raised a long list of U.S. questions and concerns about the planned raids. Reading from prepared guidance, he told Butler the decision was UNSCOM's but left the inspection chief with the plain understanding that the United States did not support his plan, according to a knowledgeable account of the meeting.

Butler canceled the raids in July but laid contingency plans to reschedule them this month after meetings on Aug. 3 and 4 in Baghdad with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Aziz announced late on the first day that Iraq would answer no further questions about its forbidden weapons, asserting that all the answers had long since been made.

Butler had brought a senior inspection team led by Scott Ritter, who heads UNSCOM's efforts to penetrate Iraqi counterintelligence efforts against the inspectors. Included on Ritter's team, officials said, were language and computer experts, experts on import and export records, and scientists knowledgeable about missiles, chemical and biological weapons.

On Aug. 4, Butler notified the U.S. government that he had authorized Ritter's team to conduct the raids on Aug. 6. That same day, he got word that Albright wished to speak with him and traveled to the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain for a secure discussion. Albright argued, according to knowledgeable accounts, that it would be a big mistake to proceed because the political stage had not been set in the Security Council.

Butler agreed to a three-day delay, to Aug. 9, in hopes that he could build broader support for UNSCOM during informal consultations with the Security Council. But after he briefed the council governments in New York, he got another high-level American call on Friday urging him to have the Ritter team stand down. The same day, he ordered them home.

In a letter to the council Wednesday, Butler said Iraq's new restrictions "bring to a halt all of the disarmament activities" of his inspectors. On Tuesday, Mohamed Baradei, director general of the IAEA, sent a similar letter to the council saying he could no longer give confident assurance that Iraq is not attempting to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

Both men are awaiting further instruction from the Security Council, which is scheduled to take up the matter Tuesday. Yesterday in Baghdad, U.N. special envoy Prakash Shah said he conveyed a message from Annan that "Iraq should continue its cooperation" with the weapons inspectors. He announced no results from what he described as a "cordial" meeting.

-----------------------------------

Want more?
Botnst is offline  
post #46 of 46 (permalink) Old 02-11-2007, 11:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
continued ....
Want more?
Bot, I read the cut and pastes, and wonder what your point was. You jumped into this thread to counter my contention that Clinton's treatment of Saddam with the consent and coordination of the UN was very effective at eliminating Saddam's threat of developing WMD. In fact, Clinton's strategy was even more effective than anyone actually thought - another point that I posted to cite the action that Clinton took was all he thought was necessary. Clinton did this with "the same intelligence data many of you claim " that Bush had ." Now we know that isn't really accurate, as Clinton didn't have cooked and cherry picked data from a basement gang of spin doctors and outright liars. So, the accuracy and meaning of the snippets you and others have quoted from Clinton and others in the time of the Clinton Presidency concerning Iraq's WMD and terrorism threats is really out of context, and actually untrue. Your claim that the sanctions and minor military strikes in support of the no-fly zone were not effectively containing Saddam is not supported by the data you posted then or since.

Your next red herring topic was the regime change Congressional Resolution, which you presumed was something more than it was - that Resolution explicitly denied authorization to send American troops to Iraq, but did commt to assist with financial and other resources (but no US troops on Iraqi soil), any attempt, stood up by foes of Saddam's inside Iraq, to overthrow Saddam. The context of why you brought this Resolution into the argument to support your claim that the sanctions were not effective is unclear, since the Resolution is a toothless political posturing document - a resolution to do nothing, but perhaps give some weapons and money to some unidentified rebels, should they stand up against Saddam some day.

You go on to suggest Clinton was on the verge of being overrun by two members of the UN Security Council, which is technically impossible. You apparently wanted to make this point enough to post the last three clips, all from days when the issue was current, and the possible motivations and solutions were substance of routine speculation in the papers, around the world. It was often welcome relief from Monikagate. But none of that changes the fact that neither of the named Security Council members was able to influence the Clinton administration to loosen the noose on Saddam's neck. In fact this is emphasized in one of the quoted articles you posted. It is stated the Clinton administration would not allow the economic sanctions to be lifted until Iraq had fully demonstrated it had disarmed.

Yes Bot, we all agree Saddam was an evil SOB. Apparently that is what is called for to rule effectively in Iraq - what exists there now is by no measure an improvement in the quality of life for any Iraqis.

Did Clinton have the same intelligence data as Bush? Maybe the same access to CIA data, but it is now coming clear that Bush's use of that data was supplemented by Rumsfeld's tiger team in the Pentagon and that the Pentagon assessments were what was used to carry Bush's case forward at the UN and in the US Congress. Knowing now that that data was exaggerated and distorted to make a case to invade Iraq, how can this persistent yapping about "everyone" thought Saddam had WMD continue to be put forward as an argument to exonerate Bush, the decider mind you on what will and will not be done by the US military in Iraq, from being charged with having purposely mislead the country and therefore illegally ordering the invasion of Iraq?

Whether you were describing your visions of what is swirling around in your crystal ball, or you were merely quoting someone quoting someone who they knew who was describing what they saw in their crystal ball, none of it supports your contention that the economic sanctions and the US military enforcement of no-fly zones were not extremely effective at containing Saddam and preventing him from pursuing any WMD programs. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Update from Douglas Bottoms and Betsy dbottoms R170 SLK-Class 5 02-16-2003 10:41 PM
    Update on Betsy and Douglas Douglas-Indianapolis R170 SLK-Class 10 08-23-2001 08:19 PM
    Douglas, please send me an e-mail... Brian R170 SLK-Class 2 07-20-2001 11:45 AM
    For Douglas DP R170 SLK-Class 2 03-05-2001 10:18 PM
    Question for Douglas Gerald R170 SLK-Class 6 12-15-2000 12:03 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome