Hi all; Rumsfeld admits (again) that they don't have the goods on Saddam:
'Reasonable People' Should Be Convinced by Behavior Pattern
DefenseLink.mil, January 29, 2003
Given more than a decade of Iraqi lies and deception, "reasonable people" ought to assume that Saddam Hussein is not going to disarm, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said during a Pentagon press briefing today.
Rumsfeld said there is a "fact pattern" Americans should follow as they make up their minds on a possible war with Iraq. He said this fact pattern would be buttressed by intelligence Secretary of State Colin Powell will reveal during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council.
...
defenselink.mil
In other words, the administration still doesn't have a case that will convince the rest of the world. Powell will simply put up the same facts that are already well known. Those who now think that there is not (yet) a case for war will undoubtedly remain unconvinced.
I should compare this to Steven den Beste's conservative hopes:
USS Clueless
Steven den Beste, January 29, 2003
So I've slept on it, now, and I do feel better. I have received a lot of letters (upwards of fifty) in response to my posting last night about the State of the Union Address, and nearly all of them tried to convince me that things weren't as bad as I thought. (Thanks for the support, folks.)
The overwhelming consensus was that the "masterstroke" is actually coming, and that what's going to happen is that Powell is going to go to the UNSC, lay out a lot of evidence, and then ask for a straight up-and-down vote on an authorization for war.
...
I don't think it would be too hard to come up with nine votes. In the long run, the non-veto powers know which side of their bread to butter up, and they know that if the US truly is determined to go to war even without UNSC authorization (which was another consensus point about the SOTU among those who wrote) then opposing us would gain them nothing but make us angry. ...
...
So it could be true. If we really can rustle up nine votes in the UNSC then we would have the ability to pin France to the wall and force the Chirac government to make a straight public choice of oui or non on whether they support murderous torturing dictators. And both answers badly damage them internationally. If they choose Saddam and veto an authorization for war, we go ahead anyway and France gets to take credit for killing the UN, not to mention for being in favor of whatever horrors in Iraq we uncover once we've won. If they vote for us, Chirac ends up looking spineless. The French rhetoric of recent weeks has painted Chirac into a corner; it may well be yet another case of giving-them-plenty-of-rope.
And no matter how it comes out it then weakens France and Germany within the EU and strengthens the UK and Spain, which is all to the good.
So it all sounds quite plausible. I hope it's true; I hope that this is what happens. But I've lost faith in the subspace crystal ball, because an attack on February 1 also looked damned plausible. I'll wait and see. The wording of the UNSC resolution will tell the tale.
denbeste.nu
Nope, there will be no new evidence.
-- Carl |
