Is what Bush doing really wrong.   Author:  16538  Category:(Debate) Created:(1/27/2003 6:43:00 PM) This post has been Viewed (1127 times) The d*mning of Saddam By Robin Gedye, Toby Harnden in Washington and Toby Helm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/28/wirq28.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/28/ixnewstop.html Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, stated unequivocally last night that Saddam Hussein had failed to disarm, greatly strengthening the American and British case for war. His report to the UN Security Council about his inspectors' work in Iraq over the past 60 days gave an unexpectedly critical appraisal of Iraq's failure to comply fully with UN resolutions to disarm and actively co-operate. He made plain that he believed Baghdad still possessed biological and chemical weapons and rockets in flagrant violation of international agreements. Its testing of missiles with a range of more than 90 miles could be "prima facie" evidence that it had weapons banned by the UN, he said. "So far Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," Mr Blix said. President George W Bush's advisers seized on the report as powerful condemnation of Iraq, making it essential that the UN act to enforce the resolutions Saddam had flouted. But Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, led calls for the inspectors to be given more time. John Negroponte, America's ambassador to the UN, said the chances of avoiding war were slim. "Unfortunately, nothing we have heard today gives us hope that Iraq intends to fully comply with resolution 1441 or any of the 16 resolutions that preceded it over the last 12 years," he said. "When a country has determined that it will voluntarily disarm, inspections are a means to an end. They cannot be expected to achieve disarmament when a country has an active programme of denial and deception, as is the case with Iraq." Mr Negroponte listed areas in which Saddam had failed to comply: a "revealingly inaccurate" weapons declaration; the discovery of 12 empty chemical warheads; the hiding of documents; and the refusal to allow spy flights by U-2 aircraft. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, said the report showed that Iraq had fobbed off the UN with "empty claims, empty declarations and empty gestures". Baghdad had little time left to "turn on the lights and come clean". The UN inspectors are likely to remain in Iraq for several weeks, or at least until Mr Blix's next report on St Valentine's Day, but there can be little doubt that America is now intent on war. It is possible that yet another very tight deadline may be set. But that would be a way of facilitating the diplomatic and military preparations for war rather than a serious attempt to avoid it. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, speaking after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, said the report showed "clear evidence that Saddam Hussein is . . . practising concealment". In recognition of Franco-German opposition to war, he conceded that "further and careful digestion of what the inspectors have said" would be needed before a decision were taken on the next steps. Downing Street insisted earlier that it was not necessary for weapons inspectors to find a "smoking gun" before military action were launched. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said that failure to co-operate fully with inspectors amounted to a material breach of the UN's demands. This represented a shift of tone from a fortnight ago, when Mr Blair, under strong pressure from Labour MPs to justify a war, hinted strongly that, given sufficient time, the inspectors would find the necessary evidence. Whitehall insiders concede that Mr Blair made a tactical error by stating that the inspectors would quickly uncover evidence incriminating enough to convince sceptical nations and the British public of the need to disarm Saddam by force. With Mr Bush determined to force the pace and impatient with the United Nations process, the Prime Minister is instead switching his emphasis to Saddam's history of non-compliance with UN resolutions. Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN, sounded a more cautious note when he said that tomorrow's Security Council deliberations on Iraqi disarmament "would not necessarily be conclusive". He said: "Most members of the Security Council, if not all, regard this as a part of a continuing process." European foreign ministers issued a statement in Brussels expressing their concern about the situation in Iraq and calling on Baghdad to "ensure full and immediate compliance with all relevant UN resolutions". The link provided has a report of the missing items. But I'd like to know is what the Bush adminastartion is doing really wrong? I mean what was that thing that happened after we let germany continue making weapons after WW1? You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click here Scroll all the way down to read replies. Show all stories by   Author:  16538 ( Click here ) Spring is coming