Posts Tagged ‘Tony Blair’

Al Gore And Artic Ice: Truth Is VERY Inconvenient

December 16, 2009

The gods in charge of exposing scientific liars and fraud must be working overtime these days.

In addition to the giant treasure trove of deceit known as “Climategate,” we now have Al Gore – last year’s recipient of the Nobel Prize for Science – revealing what a lying demagogue and fraud he is:

December 15, 2009
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling.  […]

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge. […]

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

First of all, the “developing countries” want “progress” toward a deal that would see TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in Western wealth flow to them.

And given the fact that the United States underwrites about a quarter of the U.N.’s budget, and given that most of the world has decided that the United States is mostly responsible for global warming, you can bet that America will be assessed a fair amount more than $2.5 trillion as “our share.”

Then you start to find out that the left really want a tax of $145 trillion to “fight” global warming.  And your head just starts spinning around on your neck.

You’d think we’d really want to have our science iron clad before agreeing to such a massive commitment.  But not so much.

What we have in place of science is “scientism,” science as a religious commitment, science exploited to serve the ideological cause of socialist redistributionism.  And socialism has been disguised as “saving the planet.”

Former prime minister and current global warming alarmist Tony Blair says that we need to destroy our economies so that developing nations might enjoy our wealth “even if the science is not correct.”

And the science that blames man as the cause of global warming is not even close to correct:

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans. […]

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

Is it really “science” to completely ignore 97% of the CO2, and ignore 99.9% of the greenhouse gasses in general, and even ignore the sun itself as the cause of global warming?  Is it really “science” to ignore thousands of years of geologic history, not to mention the fact that “Greenland” was called Greenland because it used to be green during a previous warming period?  Is it really “science” to allow a scientist who was caught red-handed perpetuating scientific fraud years ago to continue to dominate the climate change debate?

Is it really “science” to simply relabel “global warming” to “climate change” when the actual science started to demonstrate – contrary to the global warming lobby’s shrill claims – that global warming hasn’t happened the last ten years?

And is it really anything even remotely close to “science” to claim that “the science is settled and the debate is over” when that is simply false?  If the science is so settled, then why on earth is it that these global warming alarmist feel the need to so routinely misrepresent the facts?  Why do they deliberately destroy data?  Why do they refuse to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests?  Why do they abuse the peer-review system to undermine fellow scientists?

Al Gore has been playing a hysterical alarmist game with bogus facts and figures for years now.  That alarmist propaganda was actually why he won the Nobel Prize.  In fact, Gore has been screaming that all our ice would melt for years.  Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard writes a good article demonstrating how disgraceful and despicable Al Gore and many others have been in this regard.

Another good article details that the polar ice caps actually AREN’T melting.  Arctic ice is currently decreasing, but Antarctic ice is actually increasing.  And when you put the two ice caps on a chart, you see that the overall ice level is quite stable, just as it has been for the past 150 years.

The thing that most bothers me is that documented liars and frauds such as Al Gore and Michael Mann have been allowed to continue to be liars and frauds.  The postmodernist left does not even regard truth as a valid or meaningful category anymore, and all that remains is “the will to power.”  By any means necessary.

The inconvenient truth for the left is that “climate change” has been documented by their own scientists to be little more than a gang of thugs manipulating the data to suit their agenda while using their power to punish any would-be modern Galileo who disagrees with them.  The inconvenient truth for the rest of us is that “truth” doesn’t even matter to the left — which is why liars and frauds remain to perpetuate more lies and more fraud.  All that matters to them is raw political power. And nothing but nothing would perpetuate leftist power than imposing massive socialist redistributionism in the name of “saving the earth.”

Advertisements

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