Bush likely to declare Iraq in violation

[Nitemare]

link

Bush calls the 12 thousand page report laughable and the National Security Advisors are wanting him to declare Iraq in violation..

My guess is mid to late January before we go in to Iraq

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: axiom
This doesn't surprise me. Saddam has never been upfront about anything concerning the international community.

The man has never been upfront about anything...

 

[T2T III]

I was thinking the same thing when the report was delivered. Heck, anyone can come up with 12,000 pages of "fluff" just to make it initially look impressive. The materials - both printed and on CDRs was put on display to make Iraq look good - like they were not hiding anything. It was a P.R. stunt, that's all. Unfortuantely, a lot of the material is written in Arabic, which has required a lot of translation work to make the materials even semi-useful.

Mid to late January is also my guess - and seems to be a consensus among some of the various news sources.

 

[jjones]

No surprise. This will just keep the pressure on Saddam and we'll just have to wait and see on how he allows the inspections to proceed.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: jjones
No surprise. This will just keep the pressure on Saddam and we'll just have to wait and see on how he allows the inspections to proceed.

Actually....this is a BIG surprise. I didn't see THAT coming. Oh well.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in vioolation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

Agreed.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

If you think there is proof to be had then your a fool, if Saddam has WMA then he will hide them in a way that they would never be found like a secret bunker we don't know about.

The inspectors even said that they will never be able to find any weapons because it's Saddams country and he has 22 million people working for him.

 

[DonaldC]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: axiom
This doesn't surprise me. Saddam has never been upfront about anything concerning the international community.

The man has never been upfront about anything...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

If you think there is proof to be had then your a fool, if Saddam has WMA then he will hide them in a way that they would never be found like a secret bunker we don't know about.

The inspectors even said that they will never be able to find any weapons because it's Saddams country and he has 22 million people working for him.

Bush has claimed that they have eveidence of violations. If he is going to pursue this route of having UN backing (started back in the fall) before going into Iraq with force, then he should put up. He provided enough evidence of guilt for the 9/11 attack to satisfy the critics.
Let him do so for Iraq; this is what he agreed to when the UN resolution comprimise was hammered out.

I suspect that he thought that Iraq would not be able to cover their guilty (from his viewpoint) trail, so he would have a legitimized reason to act.

If he had evidence, leads could have easily been forwarded to the UN inspectors on where they should go looking.

Everything up to this point is that in his viewpoint he wants Iraq to be guilty, therefore they are guilty.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

If you think there is proof to be had then your a fool, if Saddam has WMA then he will hide them in a way that they would never be found like a secret bunker we don't know about.

The inspectors even said that they will never be able to find any weapons because it's Saddams country and he has 22 million people working for him.

Bush has claimed that they have eveidence of violations. If he is going to pursue this route of having UN backing (started back in the fall) before going into Iraq with force, then he should put up. He provided enough evidence of guilt for the 9/11 attack to satisfy the critics.
Let him do so for Iraq; this is what he agreed to when the UN resolution comprimise was hammered out.

I suspect that he thought that Iraq would not be able to cover their guilty (from his viewpoint) trail, so he would have a legitimized reason to act.

If he had evidence, leads could have easily been forwarded to the UN inspectors on where they should go looking.

Everything up to this point is that in his viewpoint he wants Iraq to be guilty, therefore they are guilty.

Nonsense. If Bush has evidence of violations, what need is there to show anything at this point? The inspectors are in; let them do their job. If they are unable to find anything then you address the issue of what information is to be released.

Why release information if it is not yet necessary? Why possibly put intelligence resources at risk just to appease idle curiosity?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

If you think there is proof to be had then your a fool, if Saddam has WMA then he will hide them in a way that they would never be found like a secret bunker we don't know about.

The inspectors even said that they will never be able to find any weapons because it's Saddams country and he has 22 million people working for him.

Bush seems to be sabre rattling and is blowing off the inspectors lack of success in finding problems.
The Bush administration was able to sanitize the 9/11 info to protect sources, yet reveal the linkage back to the culprits. They can do the same for Iraq.

If he has info, either direct the inspectors to where the evidence is of the violations, or produce the info. Currently he is saying that Iraq is bad because he believes it so, not that they have done anything wrong that can be fingered.

Bush has claimed that they have eveidence of violations. If he is going to pursue this route of having UN backing (started back in the fall) before going into Iraq with force, then he should put up. He provided enough evidence of guilt for the 9/11 attack to satisfy the critics.
Let him do so for Iraq; this is what he agreed to when the UN resolution comprimise was hammered out.

I suspect that he thought that Iraq would not be able to cover their guilty (from his viewpoint) trail, so he would have a legitimized reason to act.

If he had evidence, leads could have easily been forwarded to the UN inspectors on where they should go looking.

Everything up to this point is that in his viewpoint he wants Iraq to be guilty, therefore they are guilty.

Nonsense. If Bush has evidence of violations, what need is there to show anything at this point? The inspectors are in; let them do their job. If they are unable to find anything then you address the issue of what information is to be released.

Why release information if it is not yet necessary? Why possibly put intelligence resources at risk just to appease idle curiosity?

It becomes a put up the information one way or another or shut up until the UN has done its job. Hot air will not endear anyone to him at this point and make things worse. ie. Beating a dead horse.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Mrburns2007

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Untill Bush can provide proof rather than theory that violations exist, nothing will be done.

Just wishing and saying so does not make the truth happen.
Iraq may be in violation, but until it is proven by the accepted system of inspections, the US is bound by its agreements/understanding.

If Bush has evidence, he needs to present it, or lead the UN inspectors to where the violation is. Lack of guilt in itself is not a crime.

If you think there is proof to be had then your a fool, if Saddam has WMA then he will hide them in a way that they would never be found like a secret bunker we don't know about.

The inspectors even said that they will never be able to find any weapons because it's Saddams country and he has 22 million people working for him.

Bush has claimed that they have eveidence of violations. If he is going to pursue this route of having UN backing (started back in the fall) before going into Iraq with force, then he should put up. He provided enough evidence of guilt for the 9/11 attack to satisfy the critics.
Let him do so for Iraq; this is what he agreed to when the UN resolution comprimise was hammered out.

I suspect that he thought that Iraq would not be able to cover their guilty (from his viewpoint) trail, so he would have a legitimized reason to act.

If he had evidence, leads could have easily been forwarded to the UN inspectors on where they should go looking.

Everything up to this point is that in his viewpoint he wants Iraq to be guilty, therefore they are guilty.

Nonsense. If Bush has evidence of violations, what need is there to show anything at this point? The inspectors are in; let them do their job. If they are unable to find anything then you address the issue of what information is to be released.

Why release information if it is not yet necessary? Why possibly put intelligence resources at risk just to appease idle curiosity?

So they can be buried under the sand elsewhere, then the UN inspectors can go there and declare that nothing is there? A handful of people looking for weapons in an entire country where the weapons get moved around all the time??? Can you say needle in a haystack?