GOP, you had better get your act together and be assertive in the campaign for the White House in 2012.Otherwise, Obama is going to get re-elected.
I base my assertion on an essay I read yesterday in the Washington Post:
Obama’s trash-talking presserObama wants to play hardball, it seems.
By Dana Milbank,
Published: June 29
The best answer President Obama gave at his news conference was to a question nobody asked.
An hour into his unusually feisty performance in the East Room, the president was responding to CNN’s Jessica Yellin, who had pressed him on the deadline for raising the debt limit, when he decided to make a larger point.
“I’ve got to say, I’m very amused when I start hearing comments about, ‘Well, the president needs to show more leadership on this,’” Obama said, referring to the complaint made by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) when he walked out of budget talks. “Well, hey, lemme tell you something,” he said with a smile, chopping the lectern with an open hand.
“This thing,” he said after reciting the instances of his involvement in the talks, “is just not on the level.” To the Republicans, he said, “they need to do their jobs. . . You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis.”
Obama gave a case-closed shrug. “All right,” he said. “I think you know my feelings about that.”
This was Obama as he ought to be. He often seems passive in public, giving friend and foe alike the impression that his presidency is adrift on matters from Libya to gay marriage to the debt talks. But on Wednesday, in his first full news conference in three months, he was uncharacteristically assertive...
[...]
“Call me naive, but my expectation is that leaders are going to lead,” Obama admonished the opposition. He likened the Republicans to kids who procrastinate on their homework, and to deadbeats: “They took the vacation. They bought the car. And now they’re saying, ‘Maybe we don’t have to pay’ . . . We’re the greatest nation on Earth and we can’t act that way.”
Populism, pugilism and American exceptionalism: From a stoic president, this was a refreshing blend.
GOP, you had better get into the game with a hardball offensive of your own. Act the wimp, and the Oval Office will again belong to Obama. Mark my words: the strong man (or woman) will be the victor in November 2012.
And HERE is an opening salvo for you, GOP:
Yesterday: Obama Chastises Congress’ Work Ethic, “You Need To Be Here” — Today: Obama Bolts Town For Two Fundraisers...
And sonday he's going for his weekly 'fix'.No time for serious things like the budget.It's not what i say it's what i do or to be correct don't do.
ReplyDeleteThe man's INSANE! This says it all.
ReplyDeleteI think throwing blatant name calling at the President because you do not like or support him is not going to work.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that in some of his comments he is very much right, and the Republican Party and the "sort-of-Conservative" Movement in America has and is still failing. You simply are splintered, you have allowed radicalism, blatant popularism and worse of all you rely on the easy targetting of the fringe movements as a support base instead of mainstream middle-America which is needed if you want to be elected.
I am of course British, but I am a classic paleoconservative and a proud paying member of the British Conservative Party. My fisclal conservative views gives no respect to the US Democratic agenda, my Catholisism puts me at odds with Obama's social weakness but I certainly am a supporter of the Obama Administration's foreign policy which I think is a breath of fresh air.
Most of all, as not being an American I view things - albiet as what I believe is a true conservative - from a neutral point of view.
That view tells me that Obama is representing the role of President well enough, he follows his obvious agenda, he presents well both domestically and internationally and when he is fired up like in this item, he gets it right. He is correct, the Republican Movement is rather lame and if they continue as they do, you will not only get a second-term of Obama but a first term of another Democratic President after that.
"Populism, pugilism and American exceptionalism: From a stoic president, this was a refreshing blend."
Does the GOP need ammo?
ReplyDeleteEconomic issues:
- Runaway deficit spending
- Raising the public to 90% of GDP
- Real unemployment / underemployment at near 20%
- 14+ million jobs lost
- Energy independence hampered by bans and restrictions on domestic and offshore fossil fuel exploration and extraction
- Monetizing debts by printing more currency (holding inflation in check **temporarily** by keeping unemployment high)
Domestic / civil issues:
- individual mandates in Obamacare
- TSA groping at airports
- wrongfully prosecuting counter-terrorism agents and soldiers
- lax border security / illegal immigration
- selling weapons to Mexican drug dealers
- unaccountable "czars" and commissions bypassing the legislative progress to regulate industry by fiat
foreign policy issues:
- caving to Russia on missile defense
- abandoning commitments to and breaking faith with allies in Europe, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East
- acquiescing to Iranian election fraud and their unchecked pursuit of nuclear weapons
- botching diplomacy in North Africa and the Middle East
- making war upon Libya without Congressional authorization
There's so many knockout punch issues to grind Obama into dust with, combined with Obama's toilet-worthy approval ratings, that any combination of these issues and more will put someone else in the White House.
We can save it for the title fight, but let's get a damned political ninja whoopin' ass on all these counts.
America is pissed off. Give me a candidate that is pissed off.
Damn it, I'll run for President if I have to. Keep your money, give me your vote or get the hell out of my face commie. ;)
Beamish, please do not take this as my having a go at you but rather curiosity and showing you differing perspectives...
ReplyDeleteIn your Economic issues:
- Real unemployment / underemployment at near 20%
- 14+ million jobs lost
Unemployment and job loss has a lag affect of usually between 3 and 7 years, thus we can attribute this to pre-Obama and frankly I do not believe that a GOP Administration would have solved this at all considering they encouraged the fiscal crisis with bad oversight.
Domestic / civil issues:
- wrongfully prosecuting counter-terrorism agents and soldiers
- selling weapons to Mexican drug dealers
Do you mean wrongfully (please give an example) or just prosecuting? No country can uphold laws and standards if they cannot stand by those same principles. It is like the US avoiding signing the ICC Charter.
Also, when did the government sell weapons to Mexican drug dealers. I am not happy with the US's lack of support of the Drug's War but this one I have not heard or seen evidence...
foreign policy issues:
- caving to Russia on missile defense
- abandoning commitments to and breaking faith with allies in Europe, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East
- acquiescing to Iranian election fraud and their unchecked pursuit of nuclear weapons
- botching diplomacy in North Africa and the Middle East
- making war upon Libya without Congressional authorization
I actually disagree with every one of the above. There is a thing called international law and standards, if the US wishes to deal with countries they must expect to follow similar standards. American Exceptionalism in the past neo-Con method almost destroyed US credibility especially with those countries you listed as breaking faith with. The deal with Russia over missile defence came with benefits from other methods and it would be wrong anyway to assume that Russia is still the USSR or the threat of today. I would ask what commitments and were any such commitments more to do with past party politics and lobby groups, also does not America have the right to grow with the times and reality on the ground? The world has changed and partnerships with dictators or with local exclusivity (Israel) only harms US interests. Your comments on Iran are strange, should the US have attacked unilaterally Iran because they did not like the internal affairs of another country? You condemned it, embargoes already exist and be sure will not be lifted because of those events, that is all you can do. In regards to nukes, North Korea, India and Pakistan all got them regardless.... I see no bothching of affairs in the MENA region at all, the embarassing support for Mubarak was there way before Obama, as mentioned above, exclusive relations with Israel at the cost of its neighbours was unjustified and damaged the US. As for libya, there is a legal argument both ways and you do not see the Supreme Court jumping up and down do you? The White House and Defence Department will argue soundly that the UN mandated support and action against Tripoli under certain rules, thus it was mandated by the US signature of the General Charter of the UN. There are no US troops on the ground which would be a different story, the US will argue that it is enforcing the mandate nothing more or nothing less. No Congress needed at all. That argument is sound.
Though I disagree with you, particularly on foreign policy - and I admit that it is the only area that I actually support Obama - there certainly are many issues that are good ammunition for a GOP candidate to challange for the Presidency. Having said that, you do not have a worthwhile candidate unless Pawlenty ups his debating skills and Ron Paul agrees to be his running mate. At present, the splintered, factionalised and radicalized Conservatives of the US are in fact arguing themselves further into the fringe of society.
All my opinions of course....
Meanwhile, Obama will not meet with Republican Congressmen (No time?), yet he is making time host a Twitter townhall.
ReplyDeleteI'm worn out with Obama's pandering on the Internet.
NOTICE:
ReplyDeleteI have to work most of the day today, so I won't have time to comment here as much as I'd like to.
Beamish and Damien (and anyone else, for that matter), you are welcome to continue the conversation.
Nominate Bachmann, let her speak and Obummer is box to wire.
ReplyDeleteRomney, maybe not so clear.
@Damien: Unemployment and job loss has a lag affect of usually between 3 and 7 years
ReplyDeleteThat's bull.
You haven't heard of Operation Fast and Furious? Eric Holder's brilliant operation that allowed guns to flow into the hand of Mexican drug cartels?
I suggest you broaden your sources of information.
He sounded like an idiot, how he could say what he did with a straight face is beyond understanding. He's getting worried. Begging for $5.00 from voters on a raffle, then cutting the price to $3.00, sounds desperate to me.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, we need to get behind a strong candidate and not split our votes
Debbie
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
Silver, I believe Damien was saying the government did not sell those weapons, not that it did not happen.
ReplyDeleteI took Beamish's comments to also say the government was selling those arms.
And yes, that program has been a huge failure for Mexico. Who ever green lighted it should be canned.
Too bad we will never, in the spirit of government, get to the bottom of that one.
@Dave: "Too bad we will never, in the spirit of government, get to the bottom of that one."
ReplyDeleteWe will get to the bottom of it, and there we will find the incompetent boobs that staff the Obama Justice Department.
The worst criminals are the ones with government imprimatur.
Obama is totally out of ammunition. He's down to throwing sticks and stones. He wants us to believe that he is over worked? It's time to grab a shovel, Mr. President, and start doing your share.
ReplyDeleteWow:
ReplyDeletesomething really, truly desperate was going on at Team Obama. I’ve pointed out the cheesy $5 dinner raffle and closing days begging for $5 donations … but last night as the June 30 reporting period came to a close, Obama dropped his price from $5 to $3.
Just $3, and for that you get to enter the $5 raffle? That’s how desperate Team Obama is to run up the numbers of “small” donors. I wonder how the people who paid $5 feel.
Damien,
ReplyDeleteGenerally I view with suspicion those that try to subdivide conservatism into paleo- and neo- prefixes.
And invariably, the subdividers who cast themselves on the "paleo" side follow a concentrically spiralling pattern of mendacity until they arrive at precisely the same position on Israel that the far left has.
It's gotten to the point I'm hard pressed to make a distinction between the definitions of "paleoconservative" and "cryptoleftist."
There is no "paleoconservatism." There is no "neoconservatism." There is simply conservatism.
Tasked with the cause of maintaining the promise of freedeom that IS America. The Republican Party freed the slaves in America, then moved on to seeking freedom for people in other lands. Oh, there have been stumbles along the way, and outright reversals, but for the most part, conservatism has been the virtually exclusive domain of the Republican Party in the United States.
And as Ronald Reagan once proclaimed, "Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism."
"Paleoconservatives" are dead wrong on just about any foreign policy issue you can think of, and it is because they all begin with the premise that totalitarian nations around the world and para-national terrorist groups should have a voice not only in "international law" but in American foreign policy itself.
Don't get me wrong, I do have criticism for Israel. I'm baffled, for example, by their supplying electricity, water, food, and medicine to the Egyptian ex-patriates in the Gaza Strip. I have a big problem with their protecting Yasser Arafat behind a wall of Merkava tanks and harboring his terrorist organizations in the Israeli city of Ramallah.
Are you sure Israel SHOULD follow the lead and examples set by the international community, especially those on the UN Security Council? Russia, for example, levelled the city of Grozny in Chechnya over Islamic terrorism and seperatism. France keeps the oil and chocolate flowing out of Africa with backing genocidal coups there as they see fit, even throwing their military into support roles. China doesn't mind deploying tanks and infantry whenever an ideology or religion within or along their borders begins to question their government's legitimacy. Britain's not above dropping commandos on Belfast.
And thusly, America's position in global affairs is not up for negotiation and debate.
Bemish, I'm glad you mentioned, "selling weapons to Mexican drug dealers" under GOP ammo. I'd like to see all the great minds behind Operation Fast and Furious brought up on illegal firearms trafficking charges for starters. Then throw in a few murder charges. That should keep the anti-constitution crowd busy for a while.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Beamish, we will have to agree to disagree on a number of issues.
ReplyDeleteThere certainly is variations in Conservatism and in particular neo-conservatism that choses to assume force and exceptionalism as being justifiable. The previous Administration proved that and destroyed much of the repuation of the United States globally. Paleoconservatism is more back to basic routes and in a sense liberalism is possible when with neo-cons it is not.
Comparing issues like Israel with others, such as Grozny I believe is not only like talking apples versus oranges but I believe fails miserably to grasp the importance of both issues. I am a supporter of Israel's rights, including to defend itself, but simply put the Israeli lobby group in the US ensured that the "special relationship" between the two countries became exclusive and thus at the expense of others. It is not "left" to consider that the United States has an independant mind rather than a slave to a minority group within its country that frankly has allegances not to the US and that is very possible if not preferable to view its relationship with each country based on its own merit whilst obviously keeping the historically and socially close ties with Israel.
A last comment, yes there are many countries that are beligerant to the level they can get away with and my own country has certainly done so. The question is two-fold, does one do more because "others do it" and does one "wear it" with pride or as a double-standard to its own rhetoric and aspirations?
There certainly is variations in Conservatism and in particular neo-conservatism that choses to assume force and exceptionalism as being justifiable.
ReplyDeleteNo, there is simply conservative and not conservative. You don't get to substitute strawmen for the conservatives you leave behind to suit your shifting, amorphous definitions. Iraq violated cease fire agreements and several UN resolutions daily over the course of 12 years, and America's all cocked up on "force" and "exceptionalism?"
Are we even talking about the history of the same planet?
The previous Administration proved that and destroyed much of the repuation of the United States globally.
With who?
Paleoconservatism is more back to basic routes and in a sense liberalism is possible when with neo-cons it is not.
"Paleoconservatism" is leftism embarrassed to call itself that.
Comparing issues like Israel with others, such as Grozny I believe is not only like talking apples versus oranges but I believe fails miserably to grasp the importance of both issues.
Really? How so? Clearly Israel has never levelled a city to fight Islamic aggression.
I am a supporter of Israel's rights, including to defend itself, but simply put the Israeli lobby group in the US ensured that the "special relationship" between the two countries became exclusive and thus at the expense of others.
What "exclusive, special relationship?" At who's expense?
Last I checked, America keeps the coffers of Israel's declared enemies full of money for oil and parts for their American made tanks and fighter planes flowing.
All things considered, Israel's getting the crumbs of largesse America gives Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.
It is not "left" to consider that the United States has an independant mind rather than a slave to a minority group within its country that frankly has allegances not to the US and that is very possible if not preferable to view its relationship with each country based on its own merit whilst obviously keeping the historically and socially close ties with Israel.
But it is "left" to float the tired old "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" / Mein Kampf anti-Semitic smear that Israel / Jews have a master-slave relationship with others, or none at all.
"You need to be here. I’ve been here. I’ve been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden and the Greek crisis.”
ReplyDeleteThat's the quote that got MY attention; Really? He's just so busy that others need to hold HIS weight? GRRRR
Who the heck elected a LECTURER IN CHIEF.......? OH, I could say SO much more...yuck
A last comment, yes there are many countries that are beligerant to the level they can get away with and my own country has certainly done so. The question is two-fold, does one do more because "others do it" and does one "wear it" with pride or as a double-standard to its own rhetoric and aspirations?
ReplyDeleteThe reality of geopolitics is that all nations act upon their own interests, to either gain the upper hand or preserve the status quo of the hand they have. Everywhere the United States has militarily intervened has been left with an autonomous, democratically elected government or at least convinced the American way is better than what America was fighting there in the first place. Vietnam is finally embracing capitalism, and begging for help against Chinese military pressures. South Korea still stands as the contrast between freedom and totalitarianism.
Even the displaced native American tribes on our own soil enjoy a degree of local autonomy in the reservations they were shamefully deported to. History shows that the United States has been nothing but kind and generous to the nations it has gone to war with and overthrown the governments thereof in victory. The only parcel of lands America asks of them is ground to bury our dead. We don't colonize, and we're not an imperial power. Our first colony will be on another moon or planet.
So your "two-fold question" is nothing but mendacious claptrap when applied to the United States, really. You question America's relations with Israel, but you can't follow through with why, say Iran / Syria / Hezbollah or Hamas / Muslim Brotherhood / Egyptian Islamic Jihad / al Qaeda, are more worthy of American support.
We both know the reason for that, and I'll just add here that your reasoning is best packaged in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Before you pontificate upon what conservatives should believe, shouldn't you actually be a conservative?
Beamish, if your interested in insulting rather than discussing or debating then that reflects upon yourself rather than anyone else and only puts more weight on my argument as insults are normally the method of covering up self-doubt and lack of substance in the argument.
ReplyDeleteI said that we will probably agree to disagree which was a polite way on my part to say you have your right to your opinion rather than calling it "crap" as you have done so.
Paleoconservatism is "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture—an identity that is both collective and personal." - Chilton Williamson, Jr
Actually the only people who dismiss the existance of Paleoconservatism are the neo-conservatives who wish to believe there is only one lable to conservatism. If we take your argument Beamish, then only "your version" of Conservatism exists and that the Conservative movment global must be something else and probably left.
Unlike you, I do not condemn your opinion in some rude fashion but I would trust the expertise and experience of say Pat Buchanon or Ron Paul and the effort of the American Conservative or the hronicles (Magazines) which would put your point as both fringe and frankly unsupportable.
Todays term neo-conservative is less clearly defined but basically can be pointed out as "do-or-die-traditionalism but unfortunatly with no definition of what is tradition." In other words it is there to protect "something" depending on the politics of the day and therefore it is prone to radicalism and popularism (in my opinion and those of many others).
Using the "either or" argument fails when it comes to politics or international politics and is rather a popularist method of arguments. If one gives supports to the neighbours of Israel then one must be supporting Hamas, Al Qaeda and so on and thus there is no between. That does not work at all. It is rather like the argument in the UK this week because PA President Abbas visited The Netherlands and was greeted by their Queen. Some, especially the radical hater Geert Wilders said the visit should be boycotted but the answer was simple, he is a recognised head of government both by the UN and even Israel and thus deserveed the respect, thus why was the point even made? I raise this because my opinion is that half, if not most of what you raised does not merit the argument you gave or the time of day.
... continued
... continued from above...
ReplyDeleteYour assumption that I am a leftist and anti-semitic I find and to use terms similar to yours, is frankly pathetic and a lame excuse, I believe that it reflects an immaturity on your part and a popularist hidden agenda that defies logic. Only those that support the Settler Movement follow such a line to discredit any opinion that does not follow a pre-described line in Israel.
Israel most certainly has had certainly a relation in the past that was exclusive and though business and government spending has been with its neighbours, the subject of criticism of that country has been and to a degree is still taboo and at points on the rediculous side. Again, following the flawed ether-or argument that by criticizing elements of Israel makes one a supporter of terror and dictators simply does not stick. I clearly support Israel, its rights but reject what I believe is radical and religous elements within that country that are doing everything possible to avoid peace and I make no bones in my disgust for the Settler Movement which in the end is beneath dignity in any form and only is one level above terrorism that its neighbours have so often embraced.
Though I can go on endlessly and have not the time - the Bush era of neo-conservatism gone wild has embarassed and damaged the US relationship at many levels. How so? In trade it has often walked over smaller nations by using government power to win commercial enterprises - example, Japan's need to import rice, Australian rice is better than American but the Bush Administration literally said that if American rice is not purchased than Japanese imports will be "reviewed". The same goes with multiple trade from vehicles to bananas. During the Bush period, it was part of the role of the Secretary of State to push "democracy" at a level of insulting hosts, a diplomatic 'no-no' that served no purpose but to fulfill domestic agendas bac in the US. Though we can debate the importance of the Iraq conflict, the US entry came at the "price" of US companies taking over and profitting, and so on and so forth.
I have many friends in the US State Department and they all say that there was a collective "sigh of relief" when Bush was gone, from GOP and Dem voters alike. The best example of neo-con diplomatic aggressive/exceptionalism/arrogance could be put in one name "John Bolton", that the international community forced the US to drop in the UN or face a total revolt.
Anyway, I own a small 21 foot yacht and after lunch I will spend the rest of my time on this rather than dealing with immaturity. If you want to discuss and debate in the future, I suggest you learn manners and a bit of self- respect and I may respond. This thread is dead and to much was spent on it, but I certainly will comment on others as they come and I have input.
Regards
D Charles QC
Barrister (accredited both in the The UK and Spain)
Gibraltar
'a proud paying member of the British Conservative Party'
Damien,
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, I do not condemn your opinion in some rude fashion but I would trust the expertise and experience of say Pat Buchanon or Ron Paul and the effort of the American Conservative or the hronicles (Magazines) which would put your point as both fringe and frankly unsupportable.
Those would of course be the Pat Buchanan that disputes the historical necessity of the United States going to war with Hitler, champions a meritocracy-based national socialism of centrally planned government regulated industries, and dreams of conquering Canada, and the Ron Paul of white supremacist campaign finance largesse and looking to al Qaeda propaganda for geopolitical advice. It is neither fundamentally or grammatically correct to label these two twit leftists as "conservative."
Try again.
WOW... lots to read...
ReplyDeleteBeamish, are you saying, regarding Iraq, that the ignoring of UN mandates, over an extended time, was justification for the war, either totally or partially?
Beamish, are you saying, regarding Iraq, that the ignoring of UN mandates, over an extended time, was justification for the war, either totally or partially?
ReplyDeleteThat, and the tons of weaponizable pesticides (ingredients of sarin gas) the US military dug out of Iraqi ammunition depots post-invasion.
Failure to take out Saddam Hussein in a war on terrorism would be like failing to mention Elvis in a history of rock and roll. The Clinton administration identified ties between Iraq and al Qaeda in its 1998 federal indictment of Osama bin Laden and also in its justification of bombing bin Laden's al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, where Iraqi technicians were manufacturing chemical weapons. Before the ground war in 2003, several Iraqi intelligence officials defected which led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, planner of the 9/11 attacks, and the capture of Iraq's Mukhabarat headquarters and the information stored there in Baghdad is still helping America find and target al-Qaeda commanders with capture or Predator drone-launched Hellfire missiles.
And then, there's the strategic victory of taking down Iraq. Al Qaeda propaganda and literature literally teems with Osama bin Laden's dreams of creating a global pan-Islamic Caliphate with Baghdad as its capital.
Al Qaeda is no closer to ruling the Islamic world from Baghdad than they are from Lincoln, Nebraska.
To: Dave Miller.
ReplyDeleteThe first Middle East war ended in treaty with Saddam agreeing to certain conditions and terms being met, in return hostilities would cease with the understanding that they would resume if treaty obligations were not met. He ignored the terms and after 12 years and 16 UN resolutions, The war resumed.
-----------
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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 — October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors.
Continued....
UNSCR 949 — October 15, 1994
ReplyDelete"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 U.N. operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. 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 U.N. and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 — June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to U.N. inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous U.N. resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 — June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 — October 23, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to U.N. inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom U.N. inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 — November 12, 1997
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous NUN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by U.N. inspectors and its tampering with NUN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of NUN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with NUN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 — March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with NUN 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" NUN 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 NUN 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 NUN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with NUN 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.
------------
As you can see, as late as 12 years after the first war, Saddam had failed to even return prisoners from the first war, (Kuwaitis,) and was becoming bolder.
Beamish, what was found after the invasion, cannot be used as justification for a war beforehand.
ReplyDeleteWe were told we were going in to rid Saddam of WMD, to which our President said, regrettably, we found none.
So either Sarin gas is not considered a WMD, or President Bush was lying.
But that to me is past news, we went in, and are still there, so we go from there.
My larger question regards the UN mandate question.
SInce both you and Warren both cite numerous times Iraq violated UN Security mandates as sufficient justification for attacking the war, let me ask you this...
Is that a universal principle, or one that should be applied situationally?
Dave, I think ex Prime Minister Tony Blair summed it up well enough in interviews and in his book.
ReplyDeleteHe basically said that the gift of hindsight does not exist, the dangers and threats perceived along with the various intel given along with the proven capacity of Saddam Hussein PLUS his interest in WMD and the presence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups on his soil was enough to cross the line into accepting action.
He also said that he had no regrets and that any politician or pundit in his shoes would have done exactly the same and their playing with hindsight was simply unrealistic and foolish.
I am an active and financial member of the British Conservative Party and of course disagree with many Labour Party issues but I have to say that since watching his speeches on the subject and reading the book my respect for him has grown (not to mention he became a Catholic).
D Charles QC
Barrister
Gibraltar
Dave Miller said:
ReplyDelete"Is that a universal principle, or one that should be applied situationally?"
Their "may" be universal principles but responses to any given action are always situational.
Saddam was in the process of reconstituting his WMD programs even if there weren't massive stockpiles of weapons and stockpiles of weapons from the first conflict were never accounted for and still haven't, to this day. Should we have waited until his armories were full and he used them to attack us, his neighbors or his own people, (again)?
I have little patience for those that accuse President Bush of lying. Did Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, Tom Lantos, Madeline Albright, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Wesley Clark, Jacques Chirac, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, William Cohen, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, John Rockefeller, Henry Waxman & John Kerry also lie? Because every single one of them made statements to the effect that Iraq had failed to destroy its WMDs. Many of statements dated as late as 2002.
As far as the UN mandates go, to me, they are only verification that Saddam failed to live up to the terms of the treaty. The UN can go diddle itself for all I care.
Bit of a hurry on the last comment. Please excuse my mistakes.
ReplyDeleteDamien and Warren, I have no desire to reargue the reasons for attacking for Iraq, apart from the goal of enforcing the UN Security mandates.
ReplyDeleteNow since I have seen comments here that seem to imply that because Iraq was flaunting those mandates, we were justified in going in.
How come we do not, or did not, feel a need to enforce the UN Security mandates regarding Israel?
It is this type of seeming double standard that causes us such problems in that part of the world.
Just my opinion...
I explained myself clear enough. I suggest you go back and re-read the last paragraph of my 11:28 AM comment.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a problem understanding I suggest you educate yourself on Middle Eastern politics and the UN.
We are under no legal or moral compunction to follow UN mandates that we do not support and there is no ethical reason we should support the fantasies of anti-Semites as they plot the destruction of Israel or the extermination of the 7 million Jews that live there.
Dave, I fully agree and I will also chose not to get into an argument with Warren over what Israel has done that is either correct or not.
ReplyDeleteMandates are a decision by the international community to follow a course if the nations chose to or not, such as the current mandate on Libya. Those that chose not to follow something but another is based on their own internal interests and frankly speaking they have to live with the result in the face of the rest of the world.
My comment about Iraq was that the argument given by Tony Blair made sense and though originally I did not support it, I have most certainly changed my position in a 360 degree turn around, basically that at the time it was the only choice.
Beamish, what was found after the invasion, cannot be used as justification for a war beforehand.
ReplyDeleteNo, it merely reveals the ignorance and non-seriousness of the "Bush lied about WMD in Iraq" crowd.
The stockpiles of pesticide chemicals / sarin gas precursors dug up by the US military demonstrate Iraq was in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions concerning chemical weapons.
Iraq's ties to al Qaeda were outlined by the Clinton administration, which by my calendar occured quite some time before the war.
How come we do not, or did not, feel a need to enforce the UN Security mandates regarding Israel?
Because there are none. All UN Security resolutions on Iraq were under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. No resolutions on Israel passed by the UN General Assembly fall under Chapter VII guidelines, and there are no UN Security Council resolutions on Israel.
This is a very important distinction. As easy as it is to pass a General Assembly resolution in the UN, none of them have binding powers.
As hard as it is to pass a Security Council resolution in the UN, they have weight under Chapter VII of the UN charter as military force to bring compliance is always an option on the table.
Iraq was deemed a threat to international peace worthy of Chapter VII authorized military actions.
As much as the left desires to wipe Jews off the planet, they've never been able to get a binding, militarily enforceable resolution past the UN Security Council, namely the United States and Britain's veto on that council.