The proposed new US/UK resolution in the UN Security Council this week (to "green-light" an invasion of Iraq) appears to be facing vetoes from Russia, China and France. I say appears since a few friends of mine theorize that we are in the middle of an elaborate good cop/bad cop ploy in which the French or Russians would jump in and mediate with Iraq at the last minute. This they're-all-in-on-it scenario might be more plausible if GWB hadn't already nailed his colors to the mast of regime change, which doesn't provide much incentive for Baghdad to co-operate.
A NYT columnist writes that if the US/UK proposal is vetoed (and so far they don't even have a majority of the fifteen votes): "This means that the UN as now constituted may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella which strong nations restrain aggression."
What wishful thinking by Mr Safire! Let's eat our cake and have it too! Be in for humanitarian purposes and step out of it when security issues arise. This is nonsense, particularly since some sort of international (i.e. UN) mandate will be needed to provide legitimate authority in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party leaves office. And such mandates may be necessary elsewhere in the world, too -- in North Korea, even.
Ah, but note Safire's weasely qualifier "strong" before nations! First it suggests that weaker nations have no role to play in restraining aggression. And does he really think Russia and China are weak nations?
Prediction: Going in without a clear UN mandate will provoke exactly the sort of resolution condemning aggression that Mr Safire wishes to see passed, except that such a vote would be directed at the "coalition of the willing" itself.
...At which point Washington will be quick to blame the French Gremans, Russians and Chinese for destroying the UN and trashing international law.
Driving back with boss over the I-55 from work yesterday and he is not one given to deep political thinking, and I only a little more so, and he said things have sure gotten complicated from where we began--in a search for Bin Laden. He said we captured the #2 guy, in fact the guy they say is directly responsible for 911, and that we may well be very close on the heels of bin Laden himself and yet media and thus the world seems to be treating this news as like--and he paused before saying--an afterthought.
Sorry not to have a bunch of links here, but I know Robt. Fisk and others have been very skeptical about the #2 guy's actual status within al-Qaeda. Apparently he's more like 22. Not that that's the reason the mainstream press is downplaying it.
Don't know enough about his role [s?] yet to judge. The $27m reward story could be fake or psyops. I think his name came up last year in connection with the Daniel Pearl murder, so he would be wanted even if he turned out not to be as important as advertised. One theory is that Islamabad offered him up because it could not do something else: the internal consequences of voting for war in the Security Council would be riots throughout Pakistan. FWIW Pakistan yesterday announced that it will abstain.
what exactly constitutes downplaying? i suppose shrub & co have not highlighted it so as not to confuse the 45% of americans that think saddam is responsible for 9-11, but has the media in general, i couldnt say for sure. in one sense im glad it is underplayed, it is a manhunt after all.
and, not to nitpick, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is considered #3 (sounds like The Prisoner). #2 is the egyptian, Ayman Zawahiri.
heres a report from The Connection that aired yesterday regarding the hunt for bin laden.
Also, remember that Bush himself did flatly deny this connection, although I agree that he has gone on to indirectly play up the connection in the sense of continually mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath.
This from January 31, 2003 White House press conference with Tony Blair: [Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.
Reporters might do well to point out this answer when asking Bush questions about linkage. Something like, "seeing as you yourself have flatly denied any Iraq Al-Qaeda connection, what is the message you are trying to deliver by continually mentioning 9/11 in your reasons for the necessity of disarming Iraq?"
Not that you'd get a straight answer or anything. But it would be nice for someone to hold his own words against him.
|
A NYT columnist writes that if the US/UK proposal is vetoed (and so far they don't even have a majority of the fifteen votes): "This means that the UN as now constituted may continue humanitarian activity but need no longer function as the umbrella which strong nations restrain aggression."
What wishful thinking by Mr Safire! Let's eat our cake and have it too! Be in for humanitarian purposes and step out of it when security issues arise. This is nonsense, particularly since some sort of international (i.e. UN) mandate will be needed to provide legitimate authority in Iraq after the Ba'ath Party leaves office. And such mandates may be necessary elsewhere in the world, too -- in North Korea, even.
Ah, but note Safire's weasely qualifier "strong" before nations! First it suggests that weaker nations have no role to play in restraining aggression. And does he really think Russia and China are weak nations?
Prediction: Going in without a clear UN mandate will provoke exactly the sort of resolution condemning aggression that Mr Safire wishes to see passed, except that such a vote would be directed at the "coalition of the willing" itself.
...At which point Washington will be quick to blame the French Gremans, Russians and Chinese for destroying the UN and trashing international law.
- bruno 3-10-2003 10:03 pm
Driving back with boss over the I-55 from work yesterday and he is not one given to deep political thinking, and I only a little more so, and he said things have sure gotten complicated from where we began--in a search for Bin Laden. He said we captured the #2 guy, in fact the guy they say is directly responsible for 911, and that we may well be very close on the heels of bin Laden himself and yet media and thus the world seems to be treating this news as like--and he paused before saying--an afterthought.
- jimlouis 3-11-2003 3:28 pm
Sorry not to have a bunch of links here, but I know Robt. Fisk and others have been very skeptical about the #2 guy's actual status within al-Qaeda. Apparently he's more like 22. Not that that's the reason the mainstream press is downplaying it.
- tom moody 3-11-2003 6:53 pm
Don't know enough about his role [s?] yet to judge. The $27m reward story could be fake or psyops. I think his name came up last year in connection with the Daniel Pearl murder, so he would be wanted even if he turned out not to be as important as advertised. One theory is that Islamabad offered him up because it could not do something else: the internal consequences of voting for war in the Security Council would be riots throughout Pakistan. FWIW Pakistan yesterday announced that it will abstain.
- bruno 3-11-2003 8:57 pm
what exactly constitutes downplaying? i suppose shrub & co have not highlighted it so as not to confuse the 45% of americans that think saddam is responsible for 9-11, but has the media in general, i couldnt say for sure. in one sense im glad it is underplayed, it is a manhunt after all.
and, not to nitpick, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is considered #3 (sounds like The Prisoner). #2 is the egyptian, Ayman Zawahiri.
heres a report from The Connection that aired yesterday regarding the hunt for bin laden.
- dave 3-11-2003 9:40 pm
Also, remember that Bush himself did flatly deny this connection, although I agree that he has gone on to indirectly play up the connection in the sense of continually mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same breath.
This from January 31, 2003 White House press conference with Tony Blair:
Reporters might do well to point out this answer when asking Bush questions about linkage. Something like, "seeing as you yourself have flatly denied any Iraq Al-Qaeda connection, what is the message you are trying to deliver by continually mentioning 9/11 in your reasons for the necessity of disarming Iraq?"
Not that you'd get a straight answer or anything. But it would be nice for someone to hold his own words against him.
- jim 3-11-2003 10:00 pm