August 27, 2013

"It would be hours before officials in Washington woke up on Wednesday to learn the extent of the massacre."

"President Obama, who had recently returned from a weeklong vacation and planned a quiet day at the White House before departing for a two-day bus tour across New York and Pennsylvania, was told of the attack in the Oval Office that morning during his regular intelligence briefing."

That's paragraph 6 of a NYT article headlined "Advertise on
Blasts in the Night, a Smell, and a Flood of Syrian Victims."
Read the previous 5 paragraphs and think about what the NYT is trying tell us about Obama.

Remember the notion of the "3 a.m. call."


Gahrie said...

More what the Times is desperately trying not to tell us.....

RecChief said...

That paragraph encapsulates what many of us have said since the earliest days of his presidency. He's a community organizer, and as such, his job is to whip up the emotions of one group against another, never really accomplishing anything. He's not a leader, he's a campaigner, and before I receive nasty comments from the left for saying this again, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but rather the content (or lack of) of his character.

MadisonMan said...

IS this something that warrants a wake-up? IMO, no.

It warrants a response, of course.

I wonder how Obama's new dog is doing?

Michael K said...

What RecChief said.

John said...

This is probably off topic so don't post it if you wish.

The article mentions that Obama is off on a 2 day bus trip. This is not his first bus trip, I don't think.

So does he actually ride the bus? Other than perhaps a couple miles for a photo-op or jumping on just before it comes to a destination so he can be seen getting off.

If he does ride the bus, how does he get any presidenting done? I know he probably has plenty of high tech comm gear but that is not the same thing as being there.

So how does he go to war with Syria from a bus?

John Henry

SteveR said...

He's always up for a speech or fundraiser. He campaigns with a "red line" but one year later has it disappear into a complex reality that he leaves to a "coalition of the willing" to sort out. In the mean time let's lob a few cruise missiles.

Jane said...

the situation in Syria worries me quite a bit right now -- what would our knee-jerk reaction of airstrikes accomplish? And I've read speculation that it could have been the rebels with the chemical weapons -- it would certainly be to their benefit -- but I haven't looked to see if that's a credible concern.

Beorn said...

In 2008, the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast an "experienced" Hillary against a naive Barack.

After seeing them both react to Benghazi (and other crises), it is becoming painfully clear to everyone outside of the Establishment Sycophancy that neither of these people have even a basic level of competency, much less expertise.

campy said...

I wonder how Obama's new dog is doing?

Probably chasing one of those dang squirrels.

Mark said...

IMO, it would have been better if he was never told. The ratcheting up of the war rhetoric on Syria is insane; it's as though we've learned nothing in the last 12 years. The Syrian civil war has been a humanitarian catastrophe for the better part of two years. There is no compelling rational or workable plan for US involvement. Working together or alone, the Turks, Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis or even the Egyptians (if the army can stop killing its own citizens) should be the ones that intervene. It really is time for Mideast Muslim countries to step up and cure their own cancer. No good whatsoever can come from US involvement in this conflict.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matthew Sablan said...

If he'd sleep through Libya, what makes us think he'd care any more about Syria?

Cedarford said...

The problem for the Times is that 89% of Americans are sick to death of Samantha Powers like liberal do-gooders AND ALSO the old Neocon Cabal's warmongering.
89% oppose us getting into yet another WAR in ANY ME country, unless it is in our direct vital interests.

You probably would have the same 89% agree the country dodged a bullet in 2008, because as bad as Obama is - 5-6 new wars under JOhn McCain would have been worse.

What exactly would have been the value of waking Obama up at 3AM? Were Americans under attack? No. Radical Islamists out to kill Christians, Alewites, and Shiites were under attack. And instead of 50 dead by bomb or artillery directed at their positions, with them also firing on Syrian government..the Islamists allege 50 dead from gas used. About the 16th time so alleged.

This was something that can could have waited for the morning. Even now, the accuracy of the Al Qaeda and radical Sunni militia complaint is being debated by us, the Russians, Turks, UN...

Leit Bart said...

Instead of pointing out Obama's idleness, perhaps the NYT is just trying to buttress the Administration's claim that we have zero intelligence because we have zero boots on the ground. Because of course the US doesn't "arm from behind" or anything like that.

Interesting to note the dearth of references to "weapons of mass destruction" in the media.

Best plain-spoken, unslanted analysis I've found of Syria and Obama's forced "red line" error:

Edward Lunny said...

" think about what the NYT is trying tell us about Obama. " The NYT doesn't have the integrity or courage to tell us anything of importance. What we have been witnessing for the past 5 years is, the peter principle meets affirmative action. Elected by the leeches of society. Yea, that about covers it.

AF said...

I have read news reports stating that this occurred in Syria. As such, I'm not sure why it is supposed to constitute an emergency for the President of the United States. Something he should know about and address for sure. But why an emergency?

Seeing Red said...

What difference, at this point, does it make?

TosaGuy said...

When did the staff tell him about the Missouri rodeo clown?

elkh1 said...

Boy, this is really serious. He slept thru Benghazi and needed a fund raiser party to forget the terror of the murder of ambassador Stevens. Now Syria is disturbing his sleep. Can't a great man have some time for himself?

PETER V. BELLA said...

So much for his claims of being in touch while on the road, vacation, or golf course. And people laughed at Bush.

MayBee said...

Why would the guy who checked out of events when our ambassador was missing in Benghazi want to be woken up to hear about something happening to the citizens of another county?

(Wasn't he also late to hear about Egypt's military attacks on Morsi supporters?)

FleetUSA said...

If I was President (Ha!) and drew a line in the sand (Ha Ha!), I would certainly want to know at least before breakfast what happened.

He really does not care. I think he is very insular and happy with his cocooned life on top of the heap. He lets VJ make all the tough decisions just like he only reads the teleprompter and probably has no enthusiasm behind any real thoughts.

Robert Cook said...

From the article:

"...the largest mass killing of the Syrian civil war, and most likely the deadliest chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein’s troops killed thousands of Kurds with sarin gas during the waning days of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988."

CIA helped Saddam target victims for gassing

Also from the article:

"Not only has the attack brought widespread condemnation on President Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, which the United States and its allies are convinced carried out the strike...."

Yes, well...the United States also claimed to be convinced--no, were certain and had proof--Saddam had WMD and was prepared to use them or pass them off to terrorists to use. Lies told by liars.

The US will claim anything it likes to justify actions it wishes to pursue in furtherance of its covert or overt foreign policy objectives.

Is anyone any longer convinced by the flimsy claims of these government mobsters?

CWJ said...

Actually it is that sixth paragraph that sticks out jarringly. Five paragraphs into an emotionally laden Syrian news story, we jump to how it is personally affecting President Obama for a paragraph or two before going back to the situation in Syria.

This personification of the entire Federal Government in the form of the President is getting uncomfortably close to Dear Leader territory.

As to what the NYT is trying to say, I guess I'm too dim to see the message clearly.

LarsPorsena said...

The Syrian civil war is like the Iran-Iraq war. Who do you root for?

As loathsome as Assad is his opponents are AQ offshoots. I happened upon a video of them sawing off the head of a Syrian priest.
A pox upon both their houses.

mtrobertsattorney said...

We've heard enough bombast from John Forbes Kerry, now let's see the evidence.

Cedarford said...

Seeing Red said...
What difference, at this point, does it make?

1. Doing nothing? Piles of dead radical Islamists who hate us.

2. Wading in? 100s of billions lost to the Bank of China to finance it. Gobs of American casualties. Another 10-year "splendid adventure" in a hostile land. Blowback. Russia, which does have a vital interest, with its only strategic military base outside Russia in Syria, has yet another reason to become further hostile and consider America, not China, it's greatest enemy.

RecChief said...

this is the slowest knee jerk racheting in the history of the world.

Belial said...

At least they used the word "enormity" correctly (well, in its traditional usage that is) in the next paragraph. Probably inadvertently.

poppa india said...

Why would they wake him up? He was awake when the Benghazi attacks occurred and he went to bed!

Hagar said...

What you guys had better think about is that what matters is not what you think, but what our "leaders" in Washington think, which most likely is that they need to make a response, and being who and what they are, they will do a wrong thing, which will get a stronger response from Iran and Russia, and so on, until there is nothing for it, but to go to war or back down, and then these guys will back down, and then pretty soon we will be in a major war anyway.

Ann Althouse said...

"Actually it is that sixth paragraph that sticks out jarringly."

That was exactly my point in the post.

RecChief said...

Other places on the web, I've read the comparison between the US "believes" the Syrian government used chemical weapons and the Bush admin "KNEW" that Saddam had weapons as if we could be wrong. Those of us who were on the ground in Iraq were fairly certain that, whatever quantities of WMD Saddam possessed, were most likely transported to Syria.

Larry J said...

I have a dream* that intelligent, competent adults are in charge of our government. And then I wake up to the reality.

*There are dreams, fantasies and delusions. It's important to know the difference.

traditionalguy said...

The world awaits an action by Obama against the Iranian forces in Syria. Obama's CIA has armed the Jihadists with Libyan weapons. But Iran has Sarin Gas enabled Syria.

So when does Obama do what he said he would do if and when the Iranians in Syria used sarin nerve gas WMDs?

The Israelis are the most interested of all in seeing the strength behind an Obama promise that the US President can be trusted to stop Iranian WMD use.

Clyde said...

Oh, come on! How much did those Syrians contribute to his re-election campaign? You don't buy the access, you don't get the protection. It's the Chicago way!

Clyde said...

And it should be noted that Obama has more "red lines" than a Christmas candy cane.

David said...

The Times web site is down.

What does that tell you about NYT?

1. Althouse traffic was too much for them.
2. Covering their tracks?
3. Obama shut them down for publishing something critical?
4. Little joke by Jeff Bezos?
5. General incompetence of NYT?
6. That's what happens when you put a woman in charge?

Carl Heppenstall said...

It seems that the Crimes was sufficiently embarrassed as they have made the link a dead spot. Interesting.

Hagar said...

We did not find a working nuclear weapons program in Iraq, but our forces did find ammo dumps with gas warheads - I am sure I remember seeing photographs and articles worrying about these being unguarded - and at least laboratory programs preparing biological agents.

The "WMD's" were not used, but it is not true that we did not find any at all.

Robert Cook said...

"Those of us who were on the ground in Iraq were fairly certain that, whatever quantities of WMD Saddam possessed, were most likely transported to Syria."

As it happens, Saddam's WMD had been destroyed back in the 90s...which we knew, having been told so by the man who supervised their destruction, Saddam's son-in-law, (later executed by Saddam after having been lured back from his defection with promises of "all is forgiven").

"Those of (you) who were on the ground" in Iraq had no special inside knowledge to the contrary, as your heavily qualified statement ("fairly certain," "most likely") confirms.

JackOfVA said...

Hafez al-Assad had - estimates vary - between 10,000 and 40,000 people killed in the siege of Hama in 1982. The last three weeks of the siege involved the Syrian army bombarding Hama with artillery, converting it to a pile of rubble. Some reports say gas was also used, but that's less substantiated than the fact that Hama was leveled.

Oh, the reason Hama was leveled ... it was because the Muslim Brotherhood started a rebellion there, opposing Hafez al-Assad liberalization, including improving women's rights and a change that would theoretically allow a Christian to become president of Syria. (The majority of the deaths were everyday residents of Hama, not members of the Muslim Brotherhood, but as they say, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Whether you are killed by nerve gas or blown apart by an artillery round, you're just as dead.

There's no end of wrongs that need righting, at least in the eyes of some. In the case of al-Assad the younger, it seems that he is perhaps not as bad as his father, assuming one keeps score by the body count.

It seems highly likely that al-Assad the younger will not, assuming the west can remove him from office, be replaced by a Syrian Thomas Jefferson. If we've learned anything in the last 50 years, it's that Thomas Jeffersons are thin on the ground, and no place more so than in Islamic countries. Exactly how installing a radical Islamic government in Syria helps the United States and the west escapes me. But, perhaps President Obama and the profound thinkers he surrounds himself with have a different view of the benefits of radical Islam.

cassandra lite said...

Isn't it in our national security interests to have both sides in Syria fight to the death?

Our humanitarian interests may be somewhat different, but it's hard to work up much moral outrage if the "victims" are Islamists.

Hagar said...

So, why did Syria use nerve gas now?
#0 years ago, it was said that the difference between Hafiz Assad and Saddam Hussein was that Assad was sane and perpetrated his atrocities deliberately and for a purpose, not just because he liked to.
I have not seen any evidence that Bashir Assad is insane, nor the ayatollahs of Iran, and certainly not Putin.
So, why?

I think perhaps to test President Obama and see what the U.S. reaction will be. If he folds immediately, that's that; if it looks to get really serious, the Chinese and the Russians will step in and propose a peace conference and "talks" to head it off. If in between, they will deal with that.

But it is a dangerous game. If some colonel decides to sling a few gas loaded missiles into Israel, I doubt Netanyahu is going to call for a meeting and "talks" before he responds.
Or whatever. There are so many players who could take it into their heads to do crazy things.

I think this mess has parallels with the run-ups to both WWI and WWII.

Hagar said...

It was also mentioned on the news tonight that some members of the Assad "family" may have instigated this in order to make sure no one from their side will defect.
This is not the American Civil War; whoever loses here are going to die and not pleasantly.

The Godfather said...

I don't know what the Times is trying to say, but what I infer from their story is that what is going on in Syria isn't important to the President. If so, that would be about right, except that the President made his unnecessary "redline" remark, and after the (apparently) second use of gas, he's either going to have to do something or the US's international credibility will sink even lower than it already has.

So whatever is done (if anything) won't really matter, except to whoever is killed; it won't hurt Assad's ability to pursue the war, it won't help the insurgents, it won't shorten the was, it won't lengthen the war, it probably won't even affect whether poison gas is used in the future. Yet, I'm forced to say, the US has to do something, just because we can't afford to have our credibility lost entirely for the remainder of the Obama presidency. Pathetic.

cubanbob said...

Now that we know where Saddam's WMDs are will the left appologize to Bush? We have spent the last twelve years fighting AQ and now Zero wants to provide AQ with air cover? Somewhere in hell Bin Ladin is laughing his ass off.

If the press reports are correct the planned air attacks won't topple Assad so he gets to survive and brag how he survived our best punch. It's this kind of idiocy that leads our adversaries to believe we are toothless which results in the US getting sucked in to places we have no national interests at great cost in blood and treasure. If AQ wins in Syria it's really going to get ugly in the Middle East.

jr565 said...

That 3AM call is going right into voicemail.
Any good business that has an IT depr has people on call 24/7 just in case bad stuff happens overnight.
The president though needs his sleep.

jr565 said...

Lets start the air strikes that level the Assad regime. Then when everyone is cheering we turn our aim on the rebels. And don't stop till Syria is rubble. Since both sides such lets just make Syria really uncomfortorable for all sides.

jr565 said...

Whether he used gas or not, it is in our interest to topple the regime currently in power. Is this the catalyst that will do it, probably not. But you can't argue that we have no interests in ousting Assad. Same goes for Iran.
If we're going to monitor Iran for nukes and sanction them over it, then its in our interests not to let them get nukes. So, if regime change were warranted it would be serving our interests.
Not to say that therefore we should go to war tomorrow,of course.

jr565 said...

Robert cook,
This son in law?
Saddams son in law on tape talking about hiding weapons

Robert Cook said...

"Now that we know where Saddam's WMDs are will the left appologize to Bush?"

Why should anyone apologize to Bush for his lies and war crimes just because you choose to believe the nerve gas used (by...who?) in Syria belonged to Saddam?

jr565 said...

If AQ wins in Syria it's really going to get ugly in the Middle East.

and if Assad stays in power it will also stay ugly in the ME.
When you're between a rock and a hard place you choose the least bad option.
Iran and Syria's existing regimes have got to go. Will what comes next have to go too? Perhaps, but there's no reason why we'd have to prop up an Al Qaeda led regime if it were to seize control after Assad. We could arm the rebels there too, or we could bomb them too until something replaces them.

Iraq under its current regime is no utopia, but its better than Iraq under Saddam. We shouldn't expect Utopias, but we can expect better as in an Iran that is horrible but isn't undermining our efforts everywhere, and isn't actively seeking nukes.

I think some of the libertarians among us ascribe to the same fallacy that the liberals do, namely that our enemies are wind up actors who do nothing unless we are involved pulling the strings. Even if we were to somehow magically pull out of the ME, al Qaeda is still going to do what its going to do, and countries who's interest it is to prop up either an Assad regime or an Al Qaeda regime are going to act in their interest. And we are still going to have to live in that world.

Robert Cook said...

In Rush to Strike Syria, U.S. Tried to Derail U.N. Probe

The concluding paragraphs from the linked article:

"The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of U.N. inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD programme.

"In both cases, the administration had made up its mind to go to war and wanted no information that could contradict that policy to arise."

Robert Cook said...

"Iraq under its current regime is no utopia, but its better than Iraq under Saddam.

You may want to believe this, you may choose to believe this, but your belief does not suffice to satisfy the factual truth of your claim.

I don't mean to suggest that Iraq during Saddam's regime was any sort of paradise, but at least it was a functioning modern state, with Shia and Sunni Muslims working and living peacefully side by side.

It is not that now.

Robert Cook said...


There's more to the story.

Given that no WMD were ever found in Iraq in the prematurely aborted inspection regime immediately prior to our illegal invasion or the completed inspection regime conducted after our illegal invasion, despite concerted efforts to that end, one can only conclude that Saddam's son-in-law was truthful when he stated Iraq had no WMD, and continued futile efforts to rehabilitate Bush/Cheney's lies can only fail.

Moreover, even if one attempts to defend the Bush administration as having "believed" Saddam had WMD, one must point out that the Bush administration stated explicitly that they had absolute proof and certainty of their claims, that they were not merely surmising. At the very best (and least likely) they were, in fact, only surmising; at worst (and most likely) they were knowingly lying in service of winning support for an illegal war against Iraq.

Absent imminent or already initiated aggression requiring immediate defensive military response, mounting an aggressive war against another nation--even threatening it--is a violation of the UN Charger and is illegal. Mounting an aggressive war against another nation merely on the unproven belief or claim they have WMD is illegal. In fact, even if Saddam had had WMD, absent any proof he intended to use such weapons to harm us there was no substantive reason to attack Iraq, and possibly no legal reason. After all, it is an open secret that Israel is in illegal possession of a substantive nuclear arsenal; should we attack Israel if they refuse to disclose and destroy their WMD?

cubanbob said...

Why should anyone apologize to Bush for his lies and war crimes just because you choose to believe the nerve gas used (by...who?) in Syria belonged to Saddam?"

Bob I hate to bust your bubble but the Russians organized a convoy of those WMDs out of Iraq two weeks prior to the invasion. If not for the Turks stabbing us in the back by not letting the 4th ID take the Northern Route they would have been found. I suspect Putin is backing Assad in part just to avoid being caught in his complicity of transporting them out of Iraq prior to the invasion.

JR toppling Assad gets us what? An AQ state? Is that a better outcome?

cubanbob said...

RC the UN is at best a parliament of whores. Using it as argument of authority is a joke at best. As for your point about Isreal and its nukes-they actually are facing possible existential threat from their enemies. Your point would be better made against the British and the French: who is posing an existential threat against them?

As for your comment about Saddam, surely you jest.

jr565 said...

Robert cook,
How far down the rabbit hole do you want togoz. Its your premise that we always knew that Iraq had no weapons. Fine. But that then opens up a whole can of worms.
Since we actually had a history with Iraq prior to Bush.
And that history ended with The Iraq Liberation Act and all inspectors kicked out of the country.
And no inspections until bush took office.
if the premise was that we learned subsequently in between Clinton and Bush you'd hVe to show me that point in history where say our country took back what it was saying about Iraq. And that point doesn't exist.

Ah, but then you'll say that Clinton was in on it too. Well how about the UN. How many resolutions were passed before the UN said, we know we're passing these resolutions for bullshit reasons but lets do it anyway.
To then say we should not act imperially but instead go through the international bodies to handle disputes would prove to be a far e. since of course the UN would know that Iraq wasnt a threat yet still continued sanctioning it. A body that corrupt would have no justification to handle world affairs and international law would prove to be window dressing for a completely bankrupt system.
And what about Sadaam Hussein. He was asked by his handler about why he carried on with the subterfuge. He acknowledges this point, but if we all knew that would mean Iran would know too, and therefore it wouldn't be subterfuge. Iraq is only pretending to have wmd's to project strength but apparently Iran knew it didn't have WMD's so why was it still going through with the subterfuge.

In short, your argument makes no sense. And if its true implicates a lot more than just Bish. It would invalidate the UN as well. And so, next time we hear from liberals about how we'd need to go through the UN Id ask "why? So they could pass resolutions against a country knowing that that country isn't actually guilty of anything. Why would we turn over our sovereignty to such a guilty organization?"

Or, maybe just maybe Bush, and Clinton and Clinton's congress and the UN and even Sadaam acted the way they did because Iraq was either actively pursuing WMD's or pretending to and there is no evidence to the contrary to suggest otherwise in the historical record.

jr565 said...

Cubanbob wrote:
"JR toppling Assad gets us what? An AQ state? Is that a better outcome?"

I don't know in fact that it would give us an al Qaeda state. While I'm sure there are Al Qaeda amongst the rebels, there are also reformers who aren't Al Qaeda. Aho would win? Maybe we could transition Syria to a more moderate regime that doesn't involve us being at odds with them as Irans proxy. And if it became an Al Qaeda state it would be one where our military would be actively engaged in fighting al Qaeda with boots on the ground where we could inflict the most casualties.
It would be an escalation of the conflict, but if we are at war with Al Qaeda then that's the best way we actually kill them. Blowing up one or two from a drone doesn't decimate Al Qaeda, but having Al Qaeda have to divert its resources and command structure to deal with us militarily will cause them to burn themselves out.
That part is assuming of course that Al Qaeda were to replace Assad's regime, which is not a guarantee.

But having a Syria run by Assad isn't a really good option for us either.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
The administration’s effort to discredit the investigation recalls the George W. Bush administration’s rejection of the position of U.N. inspectors in 2002 and 2003 after they found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the administration’s refusal to give inspectors more time to fully rule out the existence of an active Iraqi WMD programme.

It was a continuation of the previous inspection regime where Iraq kept circumventing the process and racking up 15 resolutions for their effort. It was complete bullshit.

Bush looked at the previous history of our involvement in Iraq, and reconciled it against our policy of regime change in Iraq. We had already gone through of UN inspections, and again it ended when Clinton removed them and bombed Iraq for non compliance.

If the goal is regime change, as far back as 1998, and we already tried the UN inspections, and sanctions were in free fall, it would be insanity for Bush to continue the same unworkable policy since he had history showing it had already been tried and was a disastrous failure.

And I'll note Bush got regime change and Clinton didn't.
Our policy was a transition to democracy in Iraq and a world without Sadaam. Which policy achieved that result?.

Robert Cook said...

"And that history ended with The Iraq Liberation Act and all inspectors kicked out of the country.
And no inspections until bush took office."

The inspectors were not thrown out by Iraq but withdrawn by the UN.

Robert Cook said...

By the way, what legal right do we have to decide on and initiate "regime change" in other countries?

Robert Cook said...

"RC the UN is at best a parliament of whores. Using it as argument of authority is a joke at best."

And yet, we are a member of the UN, and a member of the Security council. It's charter, to which we are signatories, is the law. When we act in contravention of the charter we are acting illegally.

It may be a "parliament of whores," but it's all we've got right now as a tool to work toward global peace and cooperation...or, at prevent global wars. (This is its primary founding function.) If the UN is such a discredited authority, we can always withdraw from membership and act on our own...which, essentially, we do anyway. The UN gives us useful cover at times, providing us the facade of acting legally in our serial actions of brute aggression around the world. We remain in the UN because it is useful to us, and for no other reason. But, as long as we are members, it's charter requirements--as per the constitution--have the force of law over us.

"As for your point about Isreal and its nukes-they actually are facing possible existential threat from their enemies."

So they like to claim, and yet, with their arsenal of illegal nukes, they are perfectly capable of defending themselvles. Moreover, claiming "self-defense" is no argument for skirting the law. Israel could make their arsenal legal...but they would have to agree to the rules applicable to the nations of the world who are "legal" holders of nukes, including acceding to inspections regimes. They don't wish to do this. One might argue that they should not have to abide by any rules imposed from without to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, but then, what basis is there to sanction any other countries who choose to develop and maintain WMD of any kind?

cubanbob said...

RC, seriously who has legal nukes? The Russians? The Chinese? The French? The British. The Pakistani's? The Indian's? The US? The legal argument is such nonsense. International law isn't law. It's agreements between sovereign states that deem them beneficial until they don't. The US can quit the UN tomorrow, abrogate the treaties it signed and kick the UN out of New York if we wanted to and no one can do anything about it if we believed doing so is in our national interest. Laws without an ability to enforce them are nothing more than resolutions. When the UN can raise its own military and enforces its laws then then you will have a point. But not today.

jr565 said...

Robert cook wrote:
It may be a "parliament of whores," but it's all we've got right now as a tool to work toward global peace and cooperation...or, at prevent global wars

But think of the implication of what you're saying. bush knew. Therefore Clinton knew. Therefore the UN knew.
So how is the UN really working towards global peace and cooperation if it knowingly and falsely sanctions a country it believes doesnt actually have WMD,s for having WMD's simply to get oil profits. Because that is the implication of your argument.
The entire security council at the UN signed resolution 1441. Either they were sincere or they were engaged in a lie. If a lie, why are you suggesting they are a body working towards global peace? Because such an action would suggest otherwise.