Smoking Gun

[NOT Bolt Rifles]

HITCHENS: SADDAM CAUGHT RED-HANDED Jan 28 2003 :idea: By Christopher Hitchens THE term "smoking gun" is one of the more ridiculous phrases to have emerged from the recent argument over intervention against Saddam Hussein. It is an expression originally evolved from corruption or deceit in American politics, which means evidence of a crime. There is, people lazily say, "no smoking gun" in the material presented to the United Nations by the Blix inspection team. The expression is absurd in two ways. First, Saddam Hussein has already been caught red-handed, several times, employing weapons of mass destruction. His deputy, Tariq Aziz, recently admitted Iraq showered chemical poison on the city of Halabja and Iraqi generals were also good enough to admit how close they were to building a nuclear weapon by the time of the last Gulf War. Second, the mandate of the UN resolution does not require Mr Blix to flourish a "smoking gun". Instead, the resolution states with unmistakable clarity that it is up to Iraq to comply fully with the treaties it has signed. The inspection system is supposed to monitor that compliance, not investigate breaches. And it works well: checking past declarations against present reality. That is how the North Koreans were recently caught red-handed, re-deploying previously declared rods of uranium from inactive to active modes. IT is already plain that Saddam Hussein's regime has put itself in material breach of the relevant UN resolution. And it is material breach, not a "smoking gun", that has to be demonstrated. Just look at the actual materials. Mr Blix - who has a reputation as a softie when it comes to inspections - reports that an impressive number of chemical-weapon warheads are missing. Other germ-warfare and nerve-gas agents, and their delivery systems, are also unaccounted for. This is a matter of simple arithmetic, checking what can be found against Saddam's original inventory. More inspections and more time would disclose nothing except more of the same. The paper presented by Iraq on the occasion of the last deadline now proves to have been nothing more than a trash-pile of evasions and deceptions, designed to run out the clock. But who could possibly argue that the Iraqi authorities allowed unfettered access to scientists and technicians, as required by the resolution? In Sunday's New York Times, John Burns told how Iraqi guides shook with fear when even humble reporters asked unauthorised questions. These poor goons knew that they and their families would take days to die if they offended the leader even in a minor detail. Picture, then, the kind of pressure that is exerted on scientists and technicians who possess hard information. Once again, though, we do not need to rely on guesswork either. A steady number of defectors, including the nuclear physicist Dr Khidir Hamza, have escaped from Baghdad and given a fairly comprehensive blueprint of the war designs of Saddam Hussein. Once inspections had begun, it was inevitable that holes would open up in the "full disclosure" presented by his underlings. I am impressed only by the sheer crudity of their effort, and by the speed with which it has crumbled. ANYONE who repeats the mantra about "more time for the inspections" should be aware of exactly what they are demanding. With the sanctions system falling apart, and illegal trading growing apace, all goods entering or leaving Iraq yield a percentage pay-off to Saddam. With this trove of money, they can still hope to go back to the underworld market and shop around for more deadly materials. Meanwhile, the unbearable suffering of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples is protracted needlessly. In order to have a complete disclosure of Iraq's capabilities, one would have to actually be the government of Iraq. People who claim to know Iraq poses no threat are claiming either to be in the confidence of Saddam's regime, or else claiming to know more than anybody could know. But why not accept the logic of the argument? A day will come when all the sites will be open and all the documents published. On that day, the inspectors will have "completed their job". In other words, the demand for a full inspection is another way of calling for a regime change, which for many other reasons is already long overdue. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

[Wewus432]

[img]http://www.seorf.ohiou.edu/~ag151/closedolphin.jpg[/img] Hmmmmmmm. I'll have to think about that.

[CarmenC]

a voice of reason.. :thu: C

[GZsound]

This from a guy who has done a 180 degree turnaround in his writings. Maybe there is hope. I just got done watching the video of the Iraqi French made Exocet jet making practice runs spraying chemicals. The worlds fastest cropduster. Gee, makes me want to support the French. Think they may be in it for the money? naa..that's just right wing bs.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by GZsound@hotmail.com: [b]This from a guy who has done a 180 degree turnaround in his writings. Maybe there is hope. I just got done watching the video of the Iraqi French made Exocet jet making practice runs spraying chemicals. The worlds fastest cropduster. Gee, makes me want to support the French. Think they may be in it for the money? [/b][/quote]Yes, the French have financial concerns, and obviously that has an effect on the positions they take. BTW, it was a converted Mirage fighter - the Exocet is a missle. ;)

[Rick K.]

IMO, giving Saddam more time will only lead to more effective ways of hiding the weapons and production facilities. He's gotten real sneaky over the last 10 year or so!! Rick

[BNC]

Rick, its alot more than 10 :eek: , and I totally agree.

[alcohol]

Christopher Hitchens had recently in Atalantic magazine about why Henry Kissenger is a war criminal. You know Henry Kissinger, the guy appointed by George Bush to investigate 9/11. I like Hitchens. He's a liberal. i don't always agree with him. His Smoking Gun article doesn't well cover the questions of what might be the consequences of a war with Iraq that are an important part of objections to this drive for war. Anyway, I think a little glimpse of Hitchen's writings will show what a fine liberal he is. Hitchens on Bush's appointment of Henry Kissinger to investigate 9/11: [quote]There is a tendency, some of it paranoid and disreputable, for the citizens of other countries and cultures to regard President Bush's "war on terror" as opportunist and even as contrived. I myself don't take any stock in such propaganda. But can Congress and the media be expected to swallow the appointment of a proven coverup artist, a discredited historian, a busted liar, and a man who is wanted in many jurisdictions for the vilest of offenses? The shame of this, and the open contempt for the families of our victims, ought to be the cause of a storm of protest. [/quote] [url=http://slate.msn.com/id/2074678/]C Hitchens at Slate[/url]

[Jode]

double post

[Jode]

A gun does not smoke until after it has been fired. I'd rather find it before it smokes. Bear in mind that the same leftists who do not want you to own and carry a firearm think it's okey-dokey for Saddam Hussein to have sarin gas and anthrax. Both Saddam's poisons and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than my pistol.

[alcohol]

[quote]Originally posted by Jode: [b]A gun does not smoke until after it has been fired. I'd rather find it before it smokes. Bear in mind that the same leftists who do not want you to own and carry a firearm think it's okey-dokey for Saddam Hussein to have sarin gas and anthrax. Both Saddam's poisons and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than my pistol.[/b][/quote]"A gun does not smoke until after it has been fired. I'd rather find it before it smokes." Is the above sentence a rationalization for gun control? Can a mind hold two contradictory ideas at the same time? Jode demonstrates that it indeed possible. Not only does he want to be able to have a firearm but he wants the government to find it before it smokes! After they find your firearm, do you want it taken away?

[NOT Bolt Rifles]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jode: [b]A gun does not smoke until after it has been fired. I'd rather find it before it smokes. Bear in mind that the same leftists who do not want you to own and carry a firearm think it's okey-dokey for Saddam Hussein to have sarin gas and anthrax. Both Saddam's poisons and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than my pistol.[/b][/quote]"A gun does not smoke until after it has been fired. I'd rather find it before it smokes." Is the above sentence a rationalization for gun control? Can a mind hold two contradictory ideas at the same time? Jode demonstrates that it indeed possible. Not only does he want to be able to have a firearm but he wants the government to find it before it smokes! After they find your firearm, do you want it taken away?[/b][/quote]I would support disarming him if he had previously slaughtered his neighbors, as Sadaam has.

[alcohol]

[quote] I would support disarming him if he had previously slaughtered his neighbors, as Sadaam has. [/quote]Do you mean the Iraq - Iran war?

[NOT Bolt Rifles]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol: [b] [quote] I would support disarming him if he had previously slaughtered his neighbors, as Sadaam has. [/quote]Do you mean the Iraq - Iran war?[/b][/quote]I was actually refeering to the kurds, which I know are not technically his neighbours.