December 17, 2002
THE TALONS OF THE DOVE:
Powell says Iraqi papers are suspect (Barry Schweid, 12/17/2002 , Associated Press)Iraq's weapons declaration bears out US doubts that President Saddam Hussein would come clean, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday, adding that using force to disarm Hussein remains an option.Powell withheld a detailed assessment of the declaration until chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reports to the UN Security Council on Thursday, but said the declaration appears suspect. A senior White House official said that the administration would have a response to the documents by the end of the week, but that no decision has been made on whether President Bush would publicly deliver it himself.
''We said at the very beginning that we approached it with skepticism, and the information I've received so far is that skepticism is well-founded,'' Powell said in his first public comments on the declaration. [...]
If Iraq refuses to disarm, Powell said, ''The international community has an obligation to act and do whatever is necessary to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and that includes the use of military force.''
Despite the whining of the hawks and the glee of the doves over the past few months, it's hard to see how the Administration could have played this any better. When, in about six weeks, it is Mr. Powell himself who declares that war is necessary, even the NY Times, having built him up into the sole voice of reason in America, will be forced to go along. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 17, 2002 2:17 PM
Remind us again. Time here is to who's advantage?
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 17, 2002 1:56 PM"...even the NY Times, having built him up into the sole voice of reason in America, will be forced to go along."
Or to imply that Bush is holding Powell's wife hostage. One of the two.
I can think of a way to have played it better. Deliver a
note, demand specific performance, impose a short
deadline and then take action.
A do-nothing policy, like Reagain's v. Libya which I
referred to a few days ago, accomplishes nothing..
In my paper this morning is a report on Libya's
extensive and, one supposes, anticonservative and
antiliberal meddling in North Africa, so so much for
Reagan's chastisement.
The people who scorn us are going to keep scorning us
no matter what Powell may say. I am not interested in
delivering any messages to them. I was interested in
delivering a message to the people trying to kill me that
I'd rather kill them first.
As each day passes, it becomes more and more difficult
to deliver that message. I am not sure when the
crossover point comes when it is no longer possible to
retrieve the situation. It cannot be very far off.
It reminds me of how we stood by and let Hitler take over the U.S.
Posted by: oj at December 17, 2002 9:19 PMOrrin, Isn't the question rather, "Why (Lend-Lease for England and the USSR, aside) did the US stand by while Hitler took over Europe?" And of course the answer: "Because it wasn't any of the US's problem--or business. Let the Europeans fight amongst themselves." (Or alternatively perhaps, "What business is it of the US if the Nazis have declared war on the Jews?")
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 18, 2002 6:37 AMWe were lucky Hitler decided to take over the USSR first or we would have been on the losing end of that one.
The defensive strength of modern states is impressive. In 1939-45, the combined efforts of the world's first, second and fifth most powerful states were just barely sufficient to overcome the third and sixth most powerful.
Hitler might easily have consolidated German power before the US was able to react.