Posts Tagged ‘inspections’

VW Rigged Cars To Defeat Smog Tests. Just Like Obama Rigged The Iran Nuclear Deal To Circumvent Any Actual Inspections.

September 23, 2015

The VW CEO called the emissions test-dodge scandal “a moral and political disaster.”  Which for the record precisely describes the entire Obama presidency.  You want jury-rigged results based on dishonesty and lies?  Obama is your man Volkswagon is your brand.

I’m laughing at all the outrage directed by the left toward Volkswagon.  I mean, they LIED to us, liberals whine.  When Obama tells us a minimum of 37 times that if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor and if you want your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan, and then does PRECIESLY THE OPPOSITE, liberals love it.  Just as liberals loved all the other damn lies Obama told to sell his disgusting pile of roach feces otherwise known as ObamaCare.  When Obama tells us a minimum of 22 times that he can’t create his own laws by executive order regarding illegal immigration and then does exactly what he told us over and over again he’d be an emperor, an anti-democratic fascist, a tyrant to do, well, liberals love it.

Liberals LOVE to be lied to.  The only thing they truly despise is the TRUTH.

Liberals “love” the environment, or so they tell us.  So they impose ethanol on our gasoline supply.  Which first of all literally burns food that poor people (another false “love” of the left) could have eaten, but just consider how horrifyingly inefficient an energy source ethanol is: to the tune that ethanol requires six units of energy to produce an “energy source” that yields just one unit of energy.  I know, they’re all over the board on the energy value of ethanol.  But at best, we are 1) eating food for fuel and 2) we are spending billions to develop an incredibly inefficient massively-politically-subsidized energy source.  Which STILL requires massive amounts of petroleum to produce!  And liberals don’t give one flying DAMN that their “biofuels” are causing starvation in Africa and raising food prices for poor people everywhere else.  I mean, Bill Clinton personally and for all time proved that Democrats and liberals don’t give one DAMN about “black lives” if those black lives are in Africa; just consider the GENOCIDE that Bill Clinton and the leftist United Nations studiously ignored while refusing to even use the word in Rwanda.

And that is a “love” for the poor that just keeps tree-hugging the poor to death: Obama is now PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the WORST MASS REGUGEE CRISIS SINCE WORLD WAR II.  Because he blathered and did NOTHING while decent men of honor would have FOUGHT. Obama SURRENDERED to Russia, and to its puppet states of Iran and of Syria.  Just as he pathetically, cowardly, treasonously surrendered to Islamic State after all those bogus statements that we were going to degrade and defeat them. While ordering all of his bureaucrats to doctor the reports that reported the truth that Islamic State was kicking weak, puny, scrawny Obama ass.  And yes, this goes to Benghazi, where Obama and Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton refused to call an obvious TERRORIST ATTACK what it very clearly was because Obama was out campaigning that he had “decimated” al Qaeda.  Even as terrorist ARMIES were rising up that were EXTERMINATING poor Arabs by the hundreds of thousands.  Even while Obama was retreating like a coward on his “red line warning” to the Syrian regime that has brutalized and murdered now over 400,000 people while Obama did NOTHING.

You ever notice that?  How conservatives are held responsible for all the consequences of wars, but liberals are NEVER to be held accountable for the consequences of what happens when they REFUSE to fight evil?

But these are all of course irrelevant, trivial details to liberals.  We care about the damn, stupid, miserable poor.  End of story.  Now shut up and let us go back to loving them.  Liberals love the poor to death.  They prove it on a regular basis.

Liberals care so much about those poor damn birds whom we see looped in tragic oil spill disasters.  Look at those poor, beautiful birds!  But when it actually comes to mass bird deaths, liberals are to birds what Hitler was to Jews.  Consider both “alternative energy’ sources” that liberals “love” so much: wind and solar.  Birds burst into flames around solar plants; its like solar energy is the Death Star to poor birds.  And then there are all the hundreds of thousands of poor birds slowly starving to death after running into a wind farm propeller.  Liberals force Californians to use MTBE in our gasoline whether we want to or not.  It doesn’t matter that MTBE is to ground water what liberals are to birds what Hitler was to Jews.  But yes, the fact is that the ingredient liberals force us to put into our gasoline poisons ground water and causes cancer.

Just remember that liberals have good intentions.  And don’t worry that the road to hell is lined with their good intentions.

It’s like those stupid Subaru principles, where we learn that their cars are NOT designed by valid engineering principles; oh, no; they’re powered by LOVE.

So, anyway, we’ve got massively self-unaware liberals telling us with smarmy smiles how much they love the planet.  But they piss and crap on it every bit as much as the people they scream at for not caring.  Probably twice as much, given how full of toxic fecal matter they are.

So we consider the sheer, rabid rage of liberals that VW would cheat on the smog tests.  I mean, how DARE they?  Is nothing sacred?

Not if you’re a damn liberal.  They’ve made it IMPOSSIBLE for anything to be sacred in a world they have stripped the divine from.  If Darwinism is true, the survival of the fittest which Darwinism describes is true, which means social Darwinism is the highest, purest form of morality there ever has been or ever will be.

The giant moral problem with liberals is the fact that they are abject moral hypocrites.  They are the most self-unaware people who have ever lived in the entire history of the human race.  So we have a people who on the one hand kick God out of their universe and on the other hand deny the obvious social Darwinism that is entailed by kicking God out of the universe.   Apart from God, there IS no meaning, no value and no purpose to human existence beyond the horrifyingly relative.  And whenever meaning, value and purpose are allowed to become relative, to put it into Bill Clinton terms, “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”  You can weasel your way out of anything.

Let me just describe a few of the ways that Obama intentionally defeated or circumvented any legitimate Iran Nuclear Deal in a manner that made the way VW defeated or circumvented the smog tests look amateur.

First of all, Obama labeled his “deal” a “nonbinding agreement” rather than a treaty.  That in and of itself was the greatest single DEFEATOR there could have been to any legitimate treaty agreement.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines a treaty as “an agreement between two or more independent states,” meaning two or more nations, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur …”  There is absolutely no question from any rational, sentient, moral being that the Iran Nuclear Deal was a TREATY, whether you consider the clear and obvious meaning of the word “treaty” or whether you consider what the deal was ostensibly intended to accomplish.  So on the one hand, Obama with the incredible dishonesty that only Barack Obama is demon-possessed enough to be capable of labels his “deal” as a “nonbinding agreement” in order to not call it a “treaty” and then pivots to falsely claim that it is actually somehow “binding” after all.  This nuclear “deal” was nothing more than a hypocrite named Barack Obama being a hypocrite.

Had this been a “treaty,” we would have had to have a 2/3rds supporting vote in the Senate to authorize it.  Which was never going to happen given how appallingly BAD this TREATY truly is.  But instead, Obama politically maneuvered and turned what should have been a 2/3rds threshold into a mere ONE-third threshold as the same Democrats who joined in a

There is no question that this WILL be binding on future presidents.  Because think about it merely in political terms: say a future president breaks the deal.  Who are Democrats going to blame for Iran ever having a nuclear weapon?  That’s the insane gimmick: if we do nothing to stop Obama’s “deal,” just allow it to go forward exactly as Obama wrote it, then Iran becomes nuclear and you watch how Obama and Democrats weasel their way out of that with the relativistic baits and switches I described above.  But if any future Republican president in any way alters it or sets it aside, well, then that president becomes entirely politically responsible for Iran becoming a nuclear weaponized state.

This WAS a treaty, and what Obama did was a crime of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is specifically treason under Article II, Seciton 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution when Barack Obama played a weasel game of rhetoric and relativism to win what he “fundamentally transformed” from a national security issue to the most cynical form of partisan political maneuvering.

The Democrat Party displayed the most contemptuous and most cynical contempt for national security in the history of the United States, first unanimously joining Republicans to force a vote by Congress on the Iran nuclear deal and publicly agreeing that this deal had to face congressional approval, then cynically doing absolutely everything they could do to prevent any actual vote from ever taking place.  Democrats in the Senate filibustered to prevent ANY vote from happening.

Then Obama punted this out of the jurisdiction of the United States Congress by going first before the United Nations.  Where Obama committed another egregious act of pure treason against the security of the United States of America.  Incredibly, we in 2006 under the leadership of George Bush were able to get sanctions through the United Nations Security Council.  Russia and China actually came on board with us.  And having done so, they could not renege because any vote to lift these sanctions required ALL five permanent members of the Security Council’s approval.

When Obama went to the United Nations and utterly bypassed the United States Congress and our Constitution, he unilaterally allowed the sanctions to be waved so that now they can NEVER be put back into place.  Obama claims that if Iran violates the “deal,” the sanction will somehow “snap” back; that is a lie: they will NEVER snap back unless and until Iran’s powerful ally on the UN Security Council – that’s Russia, along with China – wants those sanctions.  Which they don’t.

Now Obama and his White House are arguing, if you don’t support my deal, there is nothing else.  The rest of the world won’t follow us in any sanctions we pass.  But that is ONLY because of what Obama treasonously did to undermine the sanctions that WOULD have remained in place had he not allowed them to be removed.

Russia is MASSIVELY destabilizing the Islamic world.  As Mitt Romney pointed out when he accurately and rightly said that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical foe and Obama infamously mocked him by saying, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”   Like the smarmy, arrogant, pathetic, stupid PUNK that he is.  But thanks to Obama and thanks to Hillary Clinton who idiotically “reset relations” using her incompetent State Department to mistranslate “reset” to “overcharged,” WE HAVE THE DAMN COLD WAR BACK WITH A VENGEANCE.  Just like we have World War II mass refugee migration crises.

This president has so wildly failed the human race it is unreal.  And evil is ascendant and it is frankly unstoppable now because we elected a wicked fool to be our leader.

And so as we speak, Russia is filling the void that Obama cowardly left behind.  And it is a void that every single American president since Harry Truman and since 1947 would have literally fought World War III to prevent Russia from filling.  Obama all but invited Russia in.  They have brought troops and aircraft into Syria. They are building bases in Syria. They are propping up their ally the dictator Assad whom Obama failed to remove from power despite his weak, insipid promises to the contrary, And they will NEVER leave.

The Holy Bible declared 2,600 years ago that in the last days, Russia would lead Iran and a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic states to total war against Israel.  That is the signature event that will set up the world for the coming Tribulation, in which all of the worst events in human history COMBINED won’t even begin to touch by comparison.  Every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for their role in helping Barack Obama fulfill that prophecy.  Just as they will one day scream in hell for their future part in worshiping the coming Antichrist, the coming big-government emperor made possible by Obama’s cynical godless maneuverings, and taking his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.  But I digress.

I’m sorry to bring up the Bible.  Maybe it’s because a book written 2,600 years ago prophesied that during the last days, Russia would attack Israel.  And now here Russia is in one of the nations – Syria – the Bible ALSO said would attack Israel, on Israel’s very border.  All the alliances are lined up.  Russia is on the very DOORSTEP.  We can’t get any closer to the Gog-Magog War without the actual WAR.  Which only pure FOOLS don’t know is coming soon given Russia’s incredibly emboldened and provocative stance due to their total lack of fear of Obama.

It’s sad: Democrats won’t realize what this Chump-in-Chief Obama did to them until the day they find themselves burning in hell.  Until that moment they will be absolutely and appallingly oblivious to God and to reality.

How else did Obama defeat any legitimate Iran nuclear deal?  Consider the secret agreements that all of America’s enemies know but the American people and Congress can’t see.  We find in these secret side agreements – that one day everyone who voted Democrat will burn in hell for – that all Iranian military sites will be off limits to inspections; that Iran will be able to conduct their OWN inspections at the most suspicious sites, that Iran will have a minimum of 24 days to conceal any evidence should they actually decide to allow any foreign inspectors, that none of the foreign inspectors can come from America or Canada or any country that would actually honestly inspect their facilities.  The only countries that could send theoretical “inspectors” to Iran are countries that were already buddy-buddy with them.

A country that has REPEATEDLY lied and been CAUGHT lying about its nuclear program will be trusted to not do what it has been intent upon doing for 20 years.

I mean, stop and think about it for a moment: at least VW was tested, even though they cheated.  If Obama had arranged a “deal” for them, he would have simply asked VW, “Are you in compliance?”  And of course VW would have said, “Yes.”  Just like Iran will when we ask them.

So from now on, now that VW has been caught cheating the same way Iran has, let’s just agree to simply ASK them if they’re cheating.  And take their assurances as gospel-truth.

If this isn’t already more than enough, this insane “deal” of Obama’s frees up BILLIONS – as in one-hundred and fifty billion – of dollars for Iran to use to fund terrorism.  Now, when the disease-bearing Obama horse has left the Obama barn, the Obama Administration actually is ADMITTING that Iran will almost certainly use the money Obama just gave them to fund terrorism and to pay terrorist salaries.  Every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for that.  This insane “deal” of Obama’s lifts all sanctions BY NAME against Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Qods Force (the elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps charged with export of revolution and terrorism and the proven murderers and maimers of thousands of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to their Iranian mines.

The parallel would be for Obama to give the CEO of Volkswagon a giant government subsidy and then issue him a full, permanent pardon for all of his crimes in rigging the environmental tests.  What Obama did after giving a terrorist murderer an end to all sanctions against him – you know, AFTER repeatedly telling Americans that he wasn’t going to consider the US prisoners criminally held in Iran because they had nothing to do with the nuclear issue – is beyond madness.  Maybe the Ayatollah told Obama, “Qassem Soleimani will pull the nuclear trigger when we get our nukes, so he IS part of the nuclear issue, after all.”  That’s literally the ONLY thing that makes any sense.

Because of Barack Obama, because of Democrats, Qassem Soleimani, in violation of the U.N. travel ban on him, but who really gives a damn about any “sanctions” any more given this demonic “deal” – traveled to Russia.  And Qassem Soleimani and his pal Vladimir Putin talked.  And they agreed.  The treason of Barack Obama and his Democrat Party was an invitation to set the forces of hell in goose-step march to Armageddon.

And now as a result of Obama’s demonic cowardice, Russia is full-fledged in our faces in the Middle East.

Give me Volkswagon’s cheating, defeating and circumventing any day of the week.

At least VW will not have guaranteed World War III, a holocaust of staggering proportions with hundreds of millions of people dead or dying, and the full wrath of God on planet earth, the way Obama and his DEMOnic bureaCRATS have now accomplished.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal Is So Awful And Actually GUARANTEES Iran Will Get Nuclear Weapons AND THE BALLISTIC MISSILES TO DELIVER THEM

July 15, 2015

I’ve pointed out that even the leftist New York Times acknowledges that Barack Obama is basically a malignant narcissist who believes that he’s better than everyone, smarter than everyone, more wonderful than everyone. And that he’s always right no matter what the facts say to the contrary.  The Iran nuclear deal is “historic” precisely because Obama flies in the face of all previous presidents, all previous American history, Iran’s amply demonstrated history of pathological hatred for America, Iran’s repeatedly demonstrated ability to ignore deals they made with “infidels,” numerous deadly attacks against Americans from Iran, and so on.  None of it matters to him.  He alone knows.  He believes he is God and the rest of us are mere mortal sheep to be led or slaughtered as he sees fit.

It is frankly amazing: if Obama had treated Iran the way he treats Republicans and pretty much everybody – including fellow Democrats – he disagrees with, we would have gone to full scale war with Iran by now.  Obama has NEVER even so much as bothered to talk to anyone, let alone negotiate with them and surrender concessions to them.  Rather, Obama’s attitude toward Republicans in particular has been characterized every single day of his presidency since by something he said shortly after being elected president:

Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

Which was a great line for Obama, until Republicans first took the House and then took both the House AND the Senate.  And then all of a sudden elections obviously shouldn’t have consequences.  In 2010 when Republicans slaughtered Democrats and took control of the House, suddenly it was the worst kind of evil for elections to have consequences.  And in 2014 when Republicans not only added to their numbers in the House, but took over the Senate, Obama issued a statement that the election didn’t matter at all because he could “see” the people who didn’t vote and knew that they all stood solidly behind him.  But let’s set aside the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the worst hypocrite who ever lived.  Just to underscore how profoundly arrogant, narcissistic, and pathologically immune to any form of compromise Obama is, here’s an illustrative title from The Hill: “House Democrats can’t figure out why Obama won’t talk to them.”  Two paragraphs in that article sum up even Obama’s attitude of utter disdain for his fellow Democrats, let alone the Republicans he actively despises:

Some are scratching their heads why, after nearly six years in office and a reshuffling of his legislative affairs team, Obama’s working relationship with Congress remains prickly.

“It’s hard for us to fathom; I mean, is it just lack of full staffing and resources? [Is it] professional commitment? Is it a disdain for the legislative branch? I mean, what is it?” asked Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “People like me want to be allies — I mean, I am an ally. So work with us, reach out to us; you know, we’re not the enemy.”

And whenever Obama hears anything even remotely different from his own view, he says something like this:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

Obama said those words in 2009, only days after taking office.  When it came time to speak about his Iran deal, he told Congress to talk to the hand:

While Obama on Tuesday said he welcomed a “robust” debate over the deal’s merits, he issued a warning to lawmakers considering blocking the agreement, bluntly threatening to veto any measure that would prevent the deal from going into effect.

“Precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics,” he said

On Obama’s malignant narcissist view in which he is God Almighty and therefore transcends mortal politics; he alone stands above the politic frays of sinful humanity.  It doesn’t matter that the reality is precisely the opposite, with Obama stooping lower into cynical partisan politics than any American political figure in the history of the Republic.  This is a man who in 1996 declared, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” and yet somehow afterward swore to the American people that he was opposed to same-sex marriage “as a Christian,” then “evolved” his position to impose it on the nation by executive tyranny.  Which is own most senior campaign official said was a lie all along with Obama engaging in the very lowest and most loathsome form of cheap politics there is.

The Iran deal is a horrible deal that comes from the horrible heart of an evil, horribly narcissistic man.

Israel could not be more against this “deal” as demonstrated by every single Israeli cabinet official denouncing it:

Israeli media provided exhaustive coverage of the deal and its terms, together with harsh reactions from virtually all senior officials in and allied with Netanyahu’s government.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon called the accord a “tragedy.” Education Minister Naftali Bennett declared it a “black day” and Culture Minister Miri Regev said Iran was given “license to kill.” Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said a Western preference to “reap short-term achievements” resulted in a deal that primarily serves Iran’s interests.

That article, which coming from the leftist Los Angeles Times tries to somehow blame the poison that is Obama on Netanyahu, points out that even the most moderate Israeli politicians, oppose this wicked deal: “Israeli politicians, including some of Netanyahu’s moderate foes, voiced broad agreement that under the deal, Iran was given too much of a free hand to develop its nuclear program.”

And yet Obama actually has the elephant sized cockroach testicles to lecture us that he’s the best friend Israel ever had and somehow did this terrible deal for them.

As I have previously pointed out many times before, I am a Christian who believes in the Bible and sees the last days prophecies of the Bible coming to life.  The Bible could not be more clear: the Tribulation, which leads to Armageddon, is initiated with the state of Israel signing a seven-year peace covenant with the coming Antichrist.  That has never been a real possibility given Israel’s close relationship with the United States and the U.S. promise to always maintain Israel’s security.  Until now.  Barack Obama, in his “historic deal,” has ABANDONED ISRAEL and Israel now knows that they are completely and utterly isolated.  Obama has urinated and now defecated in a relationship which began when Democrat President Harry Truman was THE first world leader to recognize the state of Israel.  And that relationship continued until Barack Hussein Obama irretrievably fractured it.  It has been broken.  All trust in the United States is gone.  And Israel WILL turn to the Antichrist as a result.

Just as the Word of God declared 3,000 years ago through the book of Daniel.

The Word of God also declared 3,000 years in advance through the book of Ezekiel that there would be a last-days war in which Russia and Iran, leading a host of nations that are conveniently ALL Islamic states, would attack Israel.  Russia would be dragged into the conflict as God literally says of it, “I will turn you around and put hooks in your jaws to lead you out with your whole army.”  And I defy anyone to tell me how that hasn’t been made more likely as Israel – driven to desperation by this wicked deal – launches its own attack against Iran’s Russian-built nuclear facilities.  And the Iran that has called Israel “a one-bomb country” and vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” demands blood.

I don’t see how that can be a good thing.

Here’s an article from the leftist Washington Post titled:

Arab states fear nuclear deal will give Iran a bigger regional role

It acknowledges the fact that:

In private, Saudis were more candid, with one diplomat describing the deal as “extremely dangerous.”

“Shocked by perceived US capitulation,” there is a “deafening Arab silence” to this godawful deal, another article points out.

So let me now get back to just how pathologically DISHONEST Barack Hussein Obama constantly is in how he deceitfully frames his argument.  He challenges critics of his horrible deal thus:

So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.

I believe I just documented rather convincingly that Israel is in vehement opposition to this deal.  I believe I just documented that Saudi Arabia and the Arab states are in opposition to this deal.  But in Barack Obama’s warped and dishonest view, the Republicans are somehow ALONE in being opposed and every single nation and every single human being who is not a Republican on earth is blissfully for it.  Barack Obama is a demon-possessed liar.  Period.

So here’s your choice, Democrat: either Obama is THE most wicked and dishonest pathological liar who has ever been born, or else Israel and for that matter Saudi Arabia and our (now likely former) Arab allies are not part of “the rest of the world.”  OR you could say, “Well, Obama isn’t a liar; he simply agrees with Iran that Israel ought to be wiped off the map so that their opinions no longer exist along with them damn Jews that Obama’s reverend for 23 years publicly hated on.  But either Obama is a liar without shame, or he shares the same hatred for Israel that his true god Lucifer holds for Israel.  You take your pick.

Either way, Barack Hussein Obama is a breathtakingly wicked man.  He is a political monster with no shame, no honesty, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind.  He just incessantly speaks naked and transparent lies.  And bad people believe his lies because it is the nature of bad people to prefer lies to the truth.

Obama has in fact triggered a massive nuclear arms race in the craziest part of the world, with Saudi Arabia vowing to lead the way.

I don’t see how that can be a good thing.

But I’m actually just getting started.

One of the things that this “deal” does is grant Iran access to conventional weapon purchases, INCLUDING BALLISTIC MISSILES. NPR reports:

The deal between Iran and six world powers is limited to keeping that nation from building a nuclear bomb. But it’s inevitable that the agreement, announced Tuesday in Vienna, will have broader consequences and one of them could be a buildup of conventional arms in the Middle East.

As part of the nuclear deal, a United Nations arms embargo on Iran, which was imposed in 2007 in response to the country’s nuclear program, will be lifted in five years for most weapons, and in eight years for ballistic missiles.

This is making some U.S. allies in the region uneasy, and they’re likely to seek more conventional weapons to counter an anticipated buying spree by Iran.

The U.S. has assured its allies that they can count on Washington’s help standing up to Iran. Two months ago, President Obama invited the Arab leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, to Camp David, where he promised them greater security cooperation.

I have pointed out over and over again that Iran has been a “threshold nuclear state” for several years and could have built a nuclear bomb any time they wanted to.  They have held off.  Why?  Because they needed ballistic missiles to be able to threaten the United States and other countries with in order to make their nuclear deterrent an actual deterrent.  I have argued that any future US president would blink, and then blink again if a dozen or two dozen major US cities would be vaporized if the US attacked them in response to their attacking Israel, or to blockading the Strait of Hormuz and sending oil prices through the roof, etc.

And Barack Hussein Obama just guaranteed that not only would there be a crazed race for nuclear weapons, not only would there be a crazed race for more conventional weapons, BUT THAT IRAN IS NOW GUARANTEED TO SOON POSSESS A BALLISTIC MISSILE CAPABILITY WITH WHICH IT WILL BE ABLE TO STRIKE THE UNITED STATES.

FACT.

I have already pointed out that Barack Hussein Obama ignores ANYBODY who doesn’t agree with him.  So here’s what Obama’s own handpicked top officials have said about any deal with Iran:

“Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking,” [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey]  told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, also testifying in a hearing otherwise focused on countering the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threat, told the committee, “We want them [the Iranians] to continue to be isolated as a military, and limited in terms of the kind of equipment materiel they are able to get.”

What did Obama do?  Ignore them.  Utterly ignore them.  So what if our top experts say this is the stupidest thing we can possibly do?  Obama just waves his hand at some “scientist” we’ve never heard of and says that “the rest of the world” somehow completely agrees with him even thought it’s a lie straight from hell.

Obama is going to give Iran $150 billion to buy those conventional weapons and that ballistic missile technology.  Iran is literally going to be able to blow us up with our own damn money and most likely our own damn technology, thanks to Obama.

Iran is two months away from building a nuclear bomb and could make about a dozen bombs right now.  They’ve been at that point for some time.  They were waiting for this deal to take the next step toward Armageddon.  And Obama just gave it to them.  Wicked Democrats who will one day all burn in hell for the baby-murdering sodomite worshiping Anti-Semite Satanists that they are poised to give it to them in Congress unless Republicans can find at least a dozen Democrats who won’t drink Obama’s demonic Kook-Aid.

One of the biggest and worst and sickest jokes of all is how Obama keeps dishonestly claiming that somehow there will actually be inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The actual process in Obama’s deal is such a convoluted joke it is beyond laughable.  Reuters reports that:

It was unclear exactly how the snapback mechanism would function, and the officials did not discuss the precise details. It was also unclear how the proposal would protect the United States and other permanent Council members from a possible Chinese or Russian veto on sanctions restoration.

It actually is quite clear: it is a convoluted mess that will never happen in the actual world.  Iran WILL cheat.  And Russia and China WILL protect Iran from having to allow any inspection that would catch Iran in the act of cheating.  Any and all “inspections” that will take place will be for show purposes only.  At the very best Iran will have at LEAST 28 days to stymie any inspection they don’t want until they’ve been able to relocate the evidence – which would of course require a FURTHER 28 days which would allow them to move the evidence again, and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  And Obama will eagerly participate in the fraud and the farce for his own vain political reasons in order to pretend that he really did strike a good deal.  While Iran continues secretly building toward the day when they can unleash Armageddon against the Little Satan Israel and against the Great Satan America.  And the moment they get the ballistic missile capability that has eluded them because of the crippling sanctions, they will throw off all the stupid and laughable pretenses of this stupid and wicked deal.

Obama is the worst kind of fool there is.  This is a man who mocked Mitt Romney when he told us that Russia was our greatest geo-political threat. Now Obama’s own pick for JCS Chairman says Romney was right and Obama was and IS a complete jackass foolThis is a man who mocked Islamic State as “JayVee” and said they were nothing to worry about when they were in the process of eating us alive and creating the largest terrorist caliphate in the history of the world.  This is a man who has never ONCE been right about ANYTHING when it has come to foreign policy or domestic policy, for that matter.

You voted for Armageddon when you voted for Obama.  And Obama is going to deliver hell for you.  And hell is where you’re going.

 

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

May 6, 2008

Iraq Chronology: 2000-2002, and 2003

Available at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s814212.htm

My sometimes admittedly smarmy editorials [appear in brackets]. I selectively choose dates in the chronology, and I add bold type face wherever I wish to emphasize a point, but I do not alter any other information in this presentation.

On 3 Feb 2000, the US Navy seized the Russian tanker Volgoneft-147 in the Persian Gulf, which was carrying Iraq oil in violation of UN sanctions against Iraq. Action resulting from smuggling by another Russian tanker results in Royal Dutch Shell’s agreeing to pay a $2 million fine, though it appeared to have been an unwitting victim of Russia’s [illegal] operations. On 23 March Vice Admiral Charles Moore, overseeing US operations in the Gulf, briefed the United Nations Sanctions Committee on the increased smuggling of Iraqi oil. Iraq is expected to earn in excess of $500 million from oil smuggling, and possibly up to double that amount, in the absence of strong action by Iran to prevent the use of its territorial waters by smugglers. [Darn. That’s a lot of money. But Saddam Hussein can be trusted to only use it for niceness, and not evilness. At this time, weapons inspectors have not been allowed into the country for two years]

On 30 March 2000, The United Nations Security Council votes to allow Iraq to import $1.2 billion in spare parts and other equipment for its oil industry this year under the “oil-for-food” program. This is an increase from the previous $600 million annual value allowed. [This program would become the worst case of UN fraud in a history chock full of fraud, and allow Iraq to continue profiting (thus rendering all UN sanctions essentially useless).]

On 24 Aug 2000, Iraq‘s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says “Iraq will not cooperate “with UNMOVIC, the body created by the United Nations to replace the former UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). [This a rather crystal clear statement as to whether Iraq intends to cooperate with weapons inspections. As will be shown, everyone says Iraq should cooperate, but a few countries will not allow any measure that punishes failure to cooperate. Everything that follows in this chronology is just part of the same sick joke]

On 30 Aug 2001, Iraq fires missiles at US aircraft, and claims to have shot down a “spy plane.” The US retaliates with air strikes. [Under the cease fire agreement, the US was allowed to fly over Iraq].

[On 11 Sep 2001, the United States is hit with four terror attacks using passenger aircraft as flying bombs (a fifth was planned but was prevented from boarding). 3000 Americans are killed. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda claim responsibility. American intelligence realizes that a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction would be catastrophic beyond imagination. Understanding that the most dangerous WMD must be developed b a nation-state, planners begin to consider the possibilities of a nation-state covertly providing WMD to some terrorist organization.]

On 27 Nov 2001 Iraq rejects a call by U.S. President George Bush to let United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country to determine whether it is building weapons of mass destruction.

28 Jan 2002 Iraqi crude oil is flowing through a pipeline to Syria and being exported – or at least substituted in Syrian refineries allowing for more Syrian crude oil exports – in violation of United Nations sanctions. Analysts have placed the amount of crude oil being sent from Iraq to Syria at between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels per day. Iraq also negotiates with Turkey to export oil – in violation of the UN program – in details which emerge on 7 Feb.

29 Jan 2002 President Bush clearly states (at the State of the Union) that “The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

On 13 Feb 2002, Iraq says that it will not allow United Nations arms inspectors to return to Iraq. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan states, “There is no need for the spies of the [U.N.] inspection teams to return to Iraq since Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction.” The United States has declared that actions may be taken against the Iraqi government if U.N. arms inspectors are not allowed to return.

On 4 April 2002, An Iraqi defector tells Vanity Fair that Iraq is developing a long-range ballistic missile system that could carry weapons of mass destruction up to 700 miles.

On 3 May 2002, UNMOVIC and Iraqi officials hold talks. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan says these are the first talks to take place at a technical level since December 1998. [In other words, over three years have passed since UNSCOM/UNMOVIC have done any significant monitoring of Iraq’s weapons program].

On 5 July talks in Vienna between the United Nations and Iraq end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

On 30 July The leaders of Germany and France say they could not support an attack on Iraq without a U.N. mandate. [But France wields a UN veto that can stop any UN action, and France and Germany are both participating in major illegal arms sales to Iraq, as well as profiting from violations in the UN oil for food program].

On 31 July [Former United Nations chief weapons inspector] Richard Butler tells a U.S. Senate Committee that Iraq increased the production of chemical and biological weapons after U.N. inspections ended- and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb. A former Iraqi nuclear engineer tells the Committee that Saddam Hussein will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005.

On 4 August 2002 Hans Blix rejects an Iraqi invitation to travel to Baghdad for “technical talks,” saying he would not do so until Saddam Hussein approved the return of weapons inspectors. [Iraq continues to refuse to allow weapons inspectors in clear and repeated violation of its cease fire agreement.]

On 8 August Saddam Hussein warns against a possible U.S. attack on his nation, saying that anyone who wages war against Iraq will die in “disgraceful failure.

On 14 August A prominent Iraqi Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, publicly issues an invitation to the US for the first time to mount an invasion of Iraq from his territory.

On 2 September 2002, Hans Blix rejects a second Iraqi request that he travel to Baghdad for “technical talks,” saying he would not do so until Saddam Hussein approved the return of weapons inspectors.

On 8 September The Guardian reports that the United States has begun a massive military build-up required for a war against Iraq, ordering the movement of tens of thousands of men and tons of material to the Gulf region.

On 10 September, The Iraqi vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, tells a press conference in Jordan that “the aggression on Iraq is an aggression on all Arab nations. It is the right of all the Arab people, wherever they are, to fight against the aggression through their representatives and on their soil … by all means….We call on all Arab and good people to confront the interests of the aggressors, their materials and humans wherever they are because this is a human right.”

On 12 Sep 2002 President Bush addresses the U.N. to put the case for war against Iraq.

On 13 September Baghdad rejects President George Bush’s demand for the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors.

On 15 September Saudi Arabia indicates that American forces would be free to attack Iraq from bases on its soil if Baghdad rejects a fresh United Nations resolution on weapons inspectors.

On 16 September, Under growing international pressure and to avoid a possible U.S. invasion, Iraq announces it will accept the unconditional return of international weapons inspectors four years after they left.

On 21 September 2002, Iraq rejects U.S. efforts to secure new U.N. resolutions threatening war. Iraqi state-run radio announces Baghdad will not abide by the unfavorable new resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council. U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix says he expects an advance team of inspectors to be in Iraq by October 15, and some early inspections could be carried out soon afterward.

On 23 September British Prime Minister Tony Blair says new sources of intelligence from inside Iraq provide “persuasive and overwhelming” evidence that Saddam Hussein is reassembling and expanding his weapons programme. Also on that day, the United States military gives President George Bush a highly detailed military plan for ousting Saddam Hussein.

On 24 September Britain publishes a dossier saying that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon within one or two years, if it obtains fissile material and other components from abroad and has constructed test equipment for a missile capable of striking British military bases in Cyprus.

On 26 September 2002 Britain and the United States reach agreement on a tough United Nations Security Council resolution which threatens Saddam Hussein with severe consequences if he fails to grant weapons inspecters unfettered access to Iraq. Russia, China and France express grave reservations about the Anglo-American text. [Russia, China, and France are all massively profiting from the corrupt U.N. oil for food program and participating in arms deals with Iraq that are illegal under the UN regulations.]

On 28 September Iraq declares it will not accept the new rules that the United States wants to impose on U.N. weapons inspections. The U.S. draft resolution calls on Iraq to: grant full access to all sites, including military bases, factories and Saddam Hussein’s presidential palaces; agree within seven days to the terms of the new resolution; and show within 30 days that it has met those demands. Failing compliance, the U.N. Security Council authorizes “all means necessary” to enforce the new conditions. Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz warns that the United States will suffer “losses they have never sustained for decades”, if Iraq is attacked.

On 1 October United Nations negotiators and an Iraqi delegation meet in Vienna to agreeterms for resuming weapons inspections. The talks leave eight presidential compounds off-limits, and the U.S. rejects the inspectors’ return without a new security council resolution toughening the inspection scheme.

On 1 October 2002 U.S. defense and intelligence officials say that President Saddam Hussein may have given army commanders conditional authority to use chemical or biological weapons if the United States invades. [Note: NOT President Bush or the White House, but the military. This intelligence is part of what shapes Bush; not part of Bush shaping the intelligence.]

On 1 October The Sydney Morning Herald reports that France and Russia have launched diplomatic strikes on the United States over its apparent determination to invade Baghdad if Saddam Hussein interfered with the work of weapons inspectors. France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, said the U.S.’s stated goal of “regime change” in Baghdad was” against international law”. [But the UN Security Council had authorized the plan. Again, France and Russia were themselves acting illegally under international law, and their actions were actually part of the reason that the United States believed Iraq was rebuilding its weapons programmes.]

On 2 October 2002, President George Bush secures bipartisan congressional support for authority to go to war without U.N. backing if the U.N. fails to agree on a new resolution making drastic new demands of Iraq.

On 5 October The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the United Nations will delay sending weapons inspectors to Iraq until after the Security Council has voted on a tough new resolution designed to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not interfere with their work.

On 7 October The New York Times reports that President Bush has declared in an address to the nation that Saddam Hussein could attack the United States or its allies “on any given day” with chemical or biological weapons. In an argument for disarming Iraq or going to war with that country, he said that “we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.”

On October 7, 2002 President George W. Bush stated: “Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq’s eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.”

On 11 October 2002 The US House of Representatives passes a resolution giving President George W. Bush broad authorization to use military force, if the United Nations fails to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. See Richard Butler’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald Bringing Saddam to Trial is the Real Challenge.

On 16 October Iraq says that Saddam Hussein has scored 100 percent of the 11.4 million votes cast in a presidential referendum, thus securing — from a field that consisted only of himself — a further seven years as Iraq’s leader. A London-based Iraqi opposition group described the poll as an illegitimate event in which terrified citizens voted out of fear of punishment.

On 16 October The New York Times reports that the Bush administration’s push for an early American-led war against Iraq has drawn broad opposition in an unusual open debate in the Security Council. Many countries backed weapons inspections, and Arab states said they would not support an attack without United Nations endorsement, considering an attack only as a last resort. Iraq’s ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, calls the United Nations economic sanctions against his country an act of genocide and rejects the American and British proposal for a new, tougher resolution for Iraq to disarm. [It is becoming increasingly clear that nothing will change. The U.N. is paralyzed and corrupt]

On 18 October 2002 The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, says that Britain and the U.S. were prepared to go it alone with military action against Iraq, if they failed to secure a new U.N. mandate on weapons inspections.

On 22 October France and Russia vow to resist a revised United Nations resolution proposed by the U.S.

On 8 Nov 2002 The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously in favor of a British and American resolution to send weapons inspectors back into Iraq. George Bush promises “the severest consequences” if Saddam Hussein fails to comply. President Saddam has one week to accept the resolution in writing, at which point weapons inspectors could head back to Iraq after an absence of over four years.

On 10 November Iraq‘s parliament condemns the U.N. resolution on resuming weapons inspections and Salim al-Koubaisi, the head of the foreign relations committee, advises MPs to follow the “wise Iraqi leadership” but recommends the legislators reject the US-drafted document. The Bush administration says it will not wait for the U.N. Security Council to approve an attack on Iraq if it fails to comply with weapons inspections.

On 12 Nov 2002 The Iraqi parliament votes unanimously to reject the United Nations resolution calling on the country to disarm.

On 13 November Iraq‘s ambassador to the U.N. says that Iraq has accepted the Security Council Resolution for the return of weapons inspectors. [More of the same continual pattern of mixed signals, followed by delay and obfuscation.

On 18 November 2002 United Nations weapons inspectors arrive in Iraq to re-launch the search for weapons of mass destruction. The 30 inspectors who flew into Baghdad from Cyprus marks the first visit by U.N. arms monitors to Iraq for four years. [There are 30 inspectors to examine a country the size of Texas.]

On 19 November Coalition planes fire on Iraqi air defenses in retaliation for an Iraqi

attack. The U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said on November 17 that such attacks are violations of the U.N.’s resolution 1441.

On 23 November 2002 U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin warn Iraq that it faces “serious consequences” if it fails to comply completely with a U.N. disarmament ultimatum. [But Putin refuses to allow ANY consequences whatsoever in ANY U.N. resolution. More useless double-talk.]

On 25 November The first team of U.N. inspectors land in Baghdad to begin their search for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. A C-130 transport plane touches down at Saddam International Airport carrying six nuclear experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency and 11 members of the Unmovic team, together with an array of high-technology sensors, computers and other equipment.

On 2 December The United States confirms it has struck targets in southern Iraq over attacks on its warplanes in no-fly zones.

On 3 December A new report published by the British Foreign Office says that the regime of President Saddam Hussein carries out “systematic torture” on Iraqi opponents of the regime.

On 3 December U.N. weapons inspectors say Iraq has admitted for the first time that it illegally tried to import aluminium tubing for weapons purposes. The Iraqis claim the tubing was for conventional and not nuclear weapons as has been claimed by the Americans and the British. [And we should believe them, because they are honest folk.]

On 4 December 2002 United States President George W. Bush says the signs that Saddam was complying completely with the inspections process are not encouraging and warns that the December 8 declaration “must be credible and complete”, adding that if Saddam did not disarm, “the United States will lead a coalition to disarm him.”

On 7 December Iraqi officials in Baghdad present the U.N. with more than 12,000 pages of documents detailing its nuclear, chemical and biological activities and formally declaring to that it has no weapons of mass destruction.

On 12 December U.N. officials say that Iraq‘s 11,000-page declaration on weapons contains mostly old information, including thousands of pages of reports that the United Nations has already seen.

On 12 December The United States reaches a preliminary conclusion that Iraq‘s 12,000-page declaration of its weapons programs fails to account for chemical and biological agents missing when inspectors left Iraq four years ago.

On 15 December 2002 The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says that the United Nations will need a few months to reach a conclusion about Iraq’s declaration on its weapons program.

On 19 December Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix says the Iraqi arms declaration contains little new information about its weapons of mass destruction capability. The United States accuses Baghdad of being in “material breach” of the UN resolution.

On 21 December United States President George W. Bush gives his formal approval to the deployment of a further 50,000 US soldiers in the Persian Gulf.

On 23 December US military officials announce that Iraqi aircraft have shot down a US unmanned surveillance drone over southern Iraq.

On 26 Dec 2002 An Iraqi scientist refuses to be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors without Iraqi officials present. [Clearly, the scientist – fearing reprisals from his government – makes this request so that Iraqi Intelligence will be able to confirm that he told the inspectors nothing.]

On 27 December A United Nations spokesman says that an Iraqi scientist interviewed by inspectors has given details of a military program suspected of being part of a secret effort to build a nuclear weapon.

On 30 December US military commanders tell the New York Times that the Saudi government has agreed to allow American planes to use its bases in a war with Iraq. Earlier On 11 December, The United States and Qatar signed a pact to upgrade Qatari military bases which the U.S. could use in a conflict with Iraq. Turkey similarly authorizes the US to use its territory for military action against Iraq on Jan 10, 2003. [Clearly, the US DOES have allies – including Arab allies – in its cause (specifically Iraq‘s neighbors)].

On 6 January 2003 An address by Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is televised to mark the 82nd

anniversary of the establishment of the country’s army. Saddam Hussein accuses the UN inspectors of being spies and calls his enemies the “friends and helpers of Satan”. He also declares that Iraq is fully prepared for war.

On 7 January Britain announces that it will mobilise 1,500 reserve forces and despatch a naval task force of 3,000 Royal Marines and about 2,000 sailors to the Persian Gulf.

On 9 January Hans Blix and Mohammed el-Baradei deliver interim assessments to the UN Security Council in New York on Iraq’s weapons declaration. Mr Blix tells reporters: “We have now been there for some two months and been covering the country in ever wider sweeps and we haven’t found any smoking guns.” [According to some sources, at the rate they are going, it will take the inspectors five or more years to complete their inspection even if Iraq continues to “cooperate.”]

On 16 January 2003, The Washington Post reports that UN weapons inspectors have found a cache of 11 empty chemical warheads, in “excellent condition” that were not listed in Iraq’s final weapons declaration. Gen. Hussam Mohammed Amin, head of Iraq’s weapons-monitoring directorate says the chemical shells were overlooked because they were stored in boxes similar to those for conventional 122mm rocket warheads.

On 16 January Four Iraqi scientists refuse to be interviewed without Iraqi officials present, [again, indicating that they wish to prove to their government that they had said nothing to inspectors]. Hans Blix again warns Iraq that it must cooperate more fully with his monitors if it wants to avoid a war with the United States and its allies. [But Iraq NEVER cooperates more, do they?]

On 19 Jan 2003 The United States offers Saddam Hussein immunity from prosecution if he leaves Iraq.US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld says in a television interview: “If to avoid a war, I would…recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country [Iraq] and their families could be provided haven in some other country.” [The ball is in Saddam’s Court.]

On 20 January US military officials announce that they are sending a force of about 37,000 soldiers to the Persian Gulf region. This takes the number of US troops ordered to deploy to around 125,000.

On 21 January The Iraqi government agrees to measures for greater cooperation with the United Nations including encouraging scientists to grant interviews to inspectors. [But they do not allow the scientists to be questioned outside of the country.]

On 22 January The United States issues a detailed report, Apparatus of Lies which seeks to expose what it calls Iraq’s “brutal record of deceit” from 1990 until the present.

On 23 Jan 2003 Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Turkey meet in Istanbul in a diplomatic effort to avert a war in Iraq. They urge Iraq to “demonstrate a more active approach” in providing information on its weapons programmes. [But ‘urging’ is meaningless without resolutions defining military consequences].

On 23 January Australia sends its first batch of an expected 1,500 troops to join the US-British buildup in the Persian Gulf region. Prime Minister John Howard farewells HMAS Kanimbla saying that it was right for the international community to try and disarm Iraq.

On 24 January United States Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz says that Washington has evidence that Iraq has threatened to kill scientists and their families if they co-operated with UN inspectors.

On 24 January China and Russia join France and Germany in calling for the Bush Administration to work within the United Nations. [It is noteworthy to point out that China, Russia, and France – longstanding opponents of American foreign policy – have veto power in the UN and can block any measure the US attempts to pass. They are also all deeply involved with massive sales to Iraq. Based on its long history of pursuit of human rights, China is probably also motivated by a profound sense of altruism.]

On 25 January 2003 Three more Iraqi weapons specialists refuse to be interviewed by UN inspectors without government authorities present. [Why don’t they want to speak with UN inspectors? And so much for the 21 January agreement.]

On 27 January In an address to the World Economic Forum in Washington US Secretary of State, Colin Powell says that Saddam Hussein has clear links with the al-Qaeda network. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denies the accusation saying Iraq has no “relationship with terrorist groups.” [They are just such nice people. The U.S. has legitimate beliefs that Iraq is doing NOTHING to disprove.]

On 27 January The newspaper of Iraq’s ruling Baath party advises the Iraqi people to be prepared for martyrdom in the event of an invasion. It also says that US and British soldiers will face the choice of “withdrawing from the battlefield or returning home in bodybags.” [Yep. That’s cooperation, all right. Hey, let’s keep trying!]

On 28 January Hans Blix reports to the UN Security Council on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq, 60 days after they began. The 15-page report states that although Iraq had been quite co-operative, there was an absence of full transparency including the deliberate concealment of documents. The report also states that inspectors have evidence that Iraq produced thousands of litres of anthrax in the 1990s and that the deadly bacteria “might still exist”. It also says that Iraq may have lied about the amount if VX nerve gas it has produced, and that it has failed to account for 6500 chemical bombs.

On 28 Jan 2003 Australian Prime Minister John Howard calls on the United Nations Security Council to act, saying it was time for the UN “rhetoric” to be backed with action. He also tells reporters that letting Saddam Hussein get away with keeping weapons of mass destruction “makes it a more dangerous world for all of us.”

On 28 January Former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler tells BBC radio that there is no doubt Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction but that an attack on Iraq without approval of the Security Council would be a contravention of international law. [Let’s put aside his political insights and consider his area of expertise: the former chief says “there is no doubt.”]

On 30 January A survey by EOS Gallup Europe says that although 66 per cent of European citizens agree that Iraq poses a serious threat to world peace, 82 per cent would not support their countries’ participating in a military intervention without UN support. 72 per cent of Europeans believe that Iraq’s oil resources are the main reason behind Washington’s desire to intervene militarily. [It is interesting to note that, five years after the invasion, the US hasn’t touched Iraqi oil.]

On 30 January The leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic call on Europe to stand united with America in the battle to disarm Iraq, in a letter published in newspapers worldwide. The letter also states: “The Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.”

On 30 January before a private meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, US President George W. Bush publicly endorses efforts by Arab leaders to negotiate exile for President Saddam Hussein. [The ball is still clearly in Saddam’s court to avoid war. This offer has been made previously.]

On 4 Feb 2003 Australian Prime Minister John Howard makes a statement to Parliament on Iraq: “To explain to the House and through it to the Australian people the government’s belief that the world community must deal decisively with Iraq; why Iraq’s continued defiance of the United Nations and its possession of chemical and biological weapons and its pursuit of a nuclear capability poses a real and unacceptable threat to the stability and security of our world; why the matters at stake go to the very credibility of the United Nations itself; why the issue is of direct concern to Australia and why, therefore, the Australian government has authorized the forward positioning of elements of the Australian Defense Force in the Persian Gulf.”

On 6 Febuary US Secretary of State Colin Powell presents tape recordings, satellite photos and informants’ statements to the UN, which he says constitute “irrefutable and undeniable” evidence that Saddam Hussein is concealing weapons of mass destruction. Read the full text of Colin Powell’s speech.

On 6 Febuary The European Union formally demands Iraq fully comply with UN inspectors. [But Iraq doesn’t comply. Now what?]

On 6 Febuary 2003 The Prime Minister of Turkey declares his government’s support for America‘s plans for military action in Iraq. On 7 Febuary Turkey’s Parliament approves a plan that will allow the United States to renovate the country’s military bases and ports.

On 7 February the Sydney Morning Herald reports that France, Russia and China have rejected US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s argument that urgent action should be taken against Iraq, saying the case for war was not strengthened by his address to the UN Security Council.

On 8 Febuary Chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix says inspectors had found another empty warhead Iraq had not disclosed, bringing to 18 the number uncovered thus far.

On 9 Febuary The Iraqis give the chief weapons inspectors more documents to try to clarify questions about chemical and biological weapons. Australian Prime Minister John Howard says Saddam Hussein needs to do more than just hand over more documents to the UN if he wants to avoid military strikes.

On 10 Feb 2003 France, Germany and Belgium block a NATO plan to improve defenses for Turkey. All three countries are involved in illegal deals with Iraq and Saddam Hussein]. Turkey responds by becoming the first country in NATO’s 53-year history to publicly invoke Article 4 of the alliance’s mutual defense treaty which binds the 19 allies to talks when one perceives a threat to its “territorial integrity, political independence or security.”

On 12 Febuary UN weapons inspectors in Iraq destroy a declared stockpile of mustard gas and artillery shells at a former weapons site.

On 13 Febuary US military officials say that US and British warplanes have struck an Iraqi surface-to-surface missile system located near Basra in southern Iraq that had been moved into striking range of US troops in Kuwait for the second time in two days. [How much longer should the U.S. allow Iraq to move its arsenal into position to kill its soldiers? Does France, Russia, China care?]

On 13 Febuary A team of international missile experts conclude that an Iraqi ballistic missile program is in clear violation of UN mandates prohibiting Iraq from building medium and long-range missiles.

On 14 Febuary United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix delivers his verdict on Iraq’s compliance with his team, telling the UN Security Council that Iraq has not fully co-operated. Blix also states that the inspectors have not found any weapons of mass destruction. The problem is that the inspectors can’t possibly find such weapons UNLESS Iraq cooperates.

On 17 Feb 2003 French President Jacques Chirac publicly pledges that France will veto a second UN resolution that explicitly authorizes military action.

On 18 Febuary Australia’s federal cabinet decides to support and lobby for a new US-led UN resolution on Iraq, setting a deadline of about two weeks for Iraq to fully comply with UN disarmament demands or face military action. On 19 Febuary Australia‘s ambassador to the United Nations, John Dauth, urges the UN Security Council to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein without delay.

On 21 Febuary UN officials say that chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix has ordered the destruction of dozens of Iraqi missiles with ranges that violated UN limits. General Amer al-Saadi, science adviser to Saddam Hussein says they are considering the demand and will “come up with a decision quite soon.” [In other words, Iraq doesn’t comply and delays again].

On 21 Febuary US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announces that the US has sufficient troops and equipment in the Gulf to launch an attack on Iraq at any time.

On 21 Febuary The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the US Navy is boarding an average of six vessels a day as it steps up patrols in international waters searching for Iraqi weapons. UNMOVIC had previously announced that there were reports suggesting that Iraqi weapons had been smuggled abroad in recent months. [What kind of weapons? Smuggled to where? We KNOW Saddam Hussein had WMD because he used it repeatedly. Where did it go? Are we truly supposed to believe that Saddam destroyed it out of goodness and guilt?]

On 22 Feb 2003 US Secretary of State, Colin Powell says there will be no war if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq. [This is at least the third U.S. invitation to avoid war]

On 22 Febuary An intelligence official tells The Washington Times that Saddam Hussein has started deploying his armed forces around Iraq in order to prevent the US from achieving a quick victory. [And we should continue to wait so he can do a better job]

On 24 Febuary The US, Britain and Spain propose a UN resolution declaring that Iraq “has failed to take the final opportunity” to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard backs the resolution, saying that if it was not carried then the credibility of the Security Council would be weakened. Germany, France and Russia present a rival initiative saying that “the military option should be the last resort.” [The Security Council will never have credibility again. The rival measure provides no end to the stalling, because there will always be some new gimmick.]

On 25 Febuary British Prime Minister Tony Blair gives an address to the House of Commons and says a vote on a new UN Security Council resolution will be delayed to give Iraq a last opportunity to disarm voluntarily.

On 25 Feb 2003 France and Germany reiterate that they will oppose the new US-backed resolution. French President Jacques Chirac says that “a majority of the UN Security Council is opposed to a second resolution” to allow the use of force to disarm Iraq. [There HAD been that first resolution back on 28 Sep 2002, however.]

On 25 Febuary France urges Iraq to avoid war by destroying its illegal al-Samoud 2 missiles. [But they don’t]

On 26 Febuary In a televised interview with CBS News, Saddam Hussein denies any connections with al-Qaeda and says he will refuse any offer of asylum, vowing to die in Iraq. He also denies his al-Samoud 2 missiles break UN resolutions and refuses to destroy them.

On 26 Febuary 2003 Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix says his team will need a few months to complete inspections in Iraq, even if Iraq “immediately, actively and unconditionally” co-operates. He also states that it is “not clear whether Iraq really wants to co-operate.” [It’s “not clear”? What is this guy smoking? It has ALWAYS been clear that Iraq intended to do everything it could NOT to cooperate. And as Blix plays a fun game of hide-and-seek and basks in the glow of media exposure, over 150,000 American troops are, and have been for months, stuck in a flea-ridden desert at exorbitant financial cost to the United States.]

On 26 February US President George Bush says that only full disarmament by Iraq will avert US military action.

On 26 February The Washington Post reports that the United States and Saudi Arabia have reached a new agreement on the use of Saudi military facilities in the event of a war against Iraq.

On 26 Feb 2003 The US military says that warplanes taking part in US-British patrols have attacked two air defense cable communications sites in southern Iraq after the Iraqi air force violated the no-fly zone.

On 26 Febuary The US tells Iraqi opposition groups that it has no intention of governing a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq any longer than it has to. [Although the aftermath has been

difficult, it clearly still doesn’t].

On 26 Febuary The British government puts forward a motion asking for backing for UN efforts to disarm Iraq which is passed by 434 to 124. However 199 MP’s, including members of the Labour Party, back an amendment to the motion which states the case for war is as yet unproven.

On 28 Febuary Pentagon officials say that satellite imagery has detected Iraqi Republican Guard units moving south from Mosul to Tikrit, about 160km north-west of Baghdad, while other units are moving into residential areas of Baghdad.

On 2 March 2003 Leaders of the 22-member Arab League gather in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik for a summit on the Iraq crisis. They declare a “complete rejection of any aggression on Iraq” and call for more time for inspections. They also urge Baghdad to abide by UN demands that it surrender weapons of mass destruction and missiles it could use to deliver them. The United Arab Emirates calls on Saddam to step down. [The second two requests will clearly never happen. The only question is whether the world – and specifically the US, Britain, and Australia, should tolerate WMD in the hands of Saddam Hussein or not].

On 5 March France, Russia and Germany again vow “not to allow” a resolution authorising war to be passed by the UN security council. They also state that Iraq must do more to cooperate, saying: “We strongly encourage the Iraqi authorities to cooperate more actively with the inspectors towards the full disarmament of their country. These inspections can not continue indefinitely.” [But they already HAVE continued indefinitely, and France, Russia, and Germany vow to ensure that they continue to continue with no consequences].

On 5 March US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Saddam Hussein has told Iraqi government officials that everything must be done to ensure inspectors do not find any weapons of mass destruction.

On 6 March 2003 China joins France and Russia in opposition to a US-British second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, saying “the Chinese side still supports using political means to resolve the Iraq issue”. Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan says there is no need for a new UN Security Council resolution on the Iraqi crisis. [Presumably this is because China is satisfied with all the progress made over the last five years].

On 7 March Turkey’s armed forces say they are in favor of allowing thousands of US troops to pass through the country and create a second front against Iraq.

On 7 March US president George W. Bush gives a news conference at the White House and says he will insist on a vote on a new resolution authorizing war on Iraq, and that it is time for UN Security Council members to “show their cards”. Bush also tells Saddam Hussein that only “total disarmament” is acceptable.

On 8 March The United States and Britain propose a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm or face war.

On 8 March 2003 A report by UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to the Security Council says that he suspects Iraq might be trying to produce new missiles. He also says it will take months to disarm Iraq, even with its active cooperation. The Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei, says there is no evidence Iraq has a nuclear weapons development program.

On 8 March Russia‘s deputy foreign minister Yuri Fedotov tells the BBC that Russia will do everything it can to ensure that an amended draft UN resolution that sets a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm is not passed by the Security Council. [In other words, those who believe the US should wait for a UN resolution to attack Iraq therefore believe that Russia should be able to unilaterally control the decision. Russia can block ANYTHING it wants to with its veto.]

On 9 March Japan declares its support for the UN Security Council resolution and Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi calls it “a final effort by the international community to pressure Iraq to disarm on its own.”

On 10 March France and Russia say they will oppose the US-backed resolution setting a March 17 ultimatum for Saddam Hussein. In a televised statement, French President Jacques Chirac says, “Whatever happens, France will vote no.” [France also has the ability to block ANY resolution it wants. At this point I add again that both France and Russia are massively benefiting from the corrupt oil for food program and from weapons sales to Iraq].

On 10 March 2003 Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei tells the Al-Hayat newspaper that a “dramatic and fundamental change in spirit and substance” from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is needed to avert war. [But one isn’t coming; so what do we do?]

On 11 March The New York Times reports that UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have found a new variety of rocket apparently configured to spread bomblets filled with chemical or biological agents over large areas.

On 11 March Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Abdel Tawab Mullah Huweish says, “our leadership, people and army are ready for the battle of destiny.” [So GIVE it to them. They have never cooperated. They will NEVER cooperate].

On 11 March Romania announces that it has expelled five Iraqi diplomats for activities incompatible with their diplomatic status.

On 11 March Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov states “that if the draft of the resolution containing ultimatum-type demands that were submitted to the UN is put on the vote, Russia will vote against it.”

On 12 March 2003 The British government puts forward six tests that the Iraqi president will have to pass to avoid war. These include a televised statement by Saddam Hussein saying he is giving up his weapons of mass destruction, permission for Iraqi weapons experts to be interviewed abroad and the complete destruction of all al-Samoud 2 missiles.

On 12 March A spokesman for the UN weapons inspectors tells reporters that Iraq has destroyed three more al-Samoud missiles.

On 13 March The UN says it has pulled out more than 30 weapons inspectors throughout Iraq.

On 13 March 2003 Australian Prime Minister John Howard gives a major speech to the National Press Club, laying his case for Australian support of US-led military action and saying that it is “very much in the national interest of Australia that Iraq have taken from her chemical and biological weapons and be denied the possibility of ever having nuclear weapons… if terrorists ever get their hands on weapons of mass destruction that will, in my very passionate belief and argument, constitute a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people.”

On 13 March Islamic Action Front leader Sheik Hamza Mansur warns Australia and other countries backing a US-led attack on Iraq that they face a violent backlash from across the Arab world.

On 13 March The UN Security Council holds a meeting to discuss Britain‘s six-test plan to deal with Saddam Hussein. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin rejects the proposal, saying the new ideas do not address the key issue of seeking a peaceful solution to the crisis. Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri dismisses the British compromise proposal calling it “an attempt to beautify a rejected aggressive project.”

On 13 March Iraqi technicians begin destroying three more banned al Samoud 2 missiles.

On 14 March 2003 In a speech in Santiago Chilean President Ricardo Lagos proposes five “benchmark” tests, a three-week deadline, and a final council judgment. [Yes, but the French don’t like such a “test,” and the French should rule the world through the UN]

On 15 March The office of the chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix announces that it has received a report from Iraq containing details of the VX chemical agents it says it destroyed 12 years ago. [But there’s no evidence beyond the claim that it was destroyed]

On 15 March ABC News Online reports that Iraqi troops have started planting mines along the border with the Kurdish-controlled north of the country. [And we should keep letting them do that]

On 16 March US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar hold an emergency summit in the Azores. They give the United Nations 24 hours to enforce “the immediate and unconditional disarmament” of Saddam Hussein. President Bush says: “Tomorrow is a moment of trut for the world. Tomorrow is the day that we can determine whether or not diplomacy will work.”

On 16 March 2003 The official Iraqi News Agency says President Saddam has warned that if Iraq was attacked, it will take the war anywhere in the world “wherever there is sky, land or water.” [There is no question that Saddam Hussein has no intention of fully cooperating. Only a fool would think otherwise. The problem is that there are so damn many fools]

On 16 March France, Russia and Germany issue a joint declaration, saying there was no justification for a war on Iraq and that UN weapons inspections were working.

On 17 March 2003 Peter Goldsmith, Attorney General for England and Wales, set out his government’s legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council Resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by Resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm, and in early 2003 sent teams of weapons inspectors to verify the facts on the ground. [And there is also that U.N. “all means necessary to enforce” resolution from 28 Sep 2002 that has been conveniently forgotten.]

On 18 March 2003 Britain, Spain and the United States withdraw a draft resolution seeking UN Security Council authority for military action to disarm Iraq, after concluding a consensus by the Security Council will not be possible. [And never will be possible].

On 18 March US President George W. Bush gives a televised speech saying “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.” [This is the fourth offer].

On 18 March The British Government votes to allow military action in Iraq with 412 votes for and 149 against. [But I thought this was George Bush’s war. Mind you, there were similar overwhelming numbers in the US House and Senate. But Britain has the same type of cowards the US does, who vote for a war, then retreat from it and start stabbing the men still fighting in the back].

On 19 March Saudi Arabia officially proposes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein should go into exile as a last-ditch effort to avert war. A Saudi diplomatic source says that “the kingdom, and other parties, are exerting maximum effort to prevent a devastating war and they have proposed the idea of exile for Saddam and securing a safe haven for him and his family”.

On 19 March 2003 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein appears on national television and rejects the US ultimatum to leave the country or face war, saying “this battle will be Iraq‘s last battle against the tyrannous villains and the last battle of aggression undertaken by America against the Arabs.” [That’s right; I’m sure somewhere that there is a tape of Bush saying “We’ll go after Jordan next!”]

On 19 March The Iraqi parliament unanimously rejects the US ultimatum for President Saddam Hussein to leave the country and says any US-led invasion of Iraq will end in defeat.

On 19 March At the UN Security Council, Germany, France and Russia condemn any military action. [Is that a surprise, or what?]

On 19 March Chief UN Weapons inspector Hans Blix tells the UN Security Council that “I naturally feel sadness that 3 months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq.” [This is completely correct: we rightfully demanded assurances, and Iraq did nothing to provide such assurance. We rightfully demanded that the UN produce a resolution that had some kind of teeth, and some kind of consequence for noncompliance, but a few key countries repeatedly declared and demonstrated that no such resolution would ever come.]

On 19 March 2003 Thailand expels three Iraqi diplomats because they posed a threat to national security. On 18 March Germany’s foreign ministry said that four Iraqi diplomats had been ordered to leave the country for activities “incompatible with their diplomatic status.”

On 19 March Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declares his support for the United States‘ stance on Iraq but says Italy will take no direct part in a US-led military assault.

On 20 March 2003 US President George W Bush announces that he has launched war against Iraq: “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger… On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign… this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory.” [President Bush doesn’t like a campaign of “half measures”? Then he must have been really annoyed by the 1/1000th measures that the U.N. had been providing].

In my editorial comments, I state three things that I do not attempt to prove here:

1) That the U.N. oil for food program is corrupt.

2) That specific countries which oppose any meaningful U.N. resolution containing consequences for Iraq if it does not fully cooperate with weapons inspections illegitimately benefit from the oil for food program.

3) That specific countries which oppose any meaningful U.N. resolution containing consequences for Iraq if it does not fully cooperate with weapons inspections engage in significant weapons sales with Iraq.

The establishment of these facts will take up my third article in this series, “Iraq War Justified.”

See also Part 1: Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History

See also Part 3: Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible