And.... so?

[khaosworks]

Bush: Iraq is playing 'willful charade'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush accused Iraq of engaging in a "willful charade" with U.N. weapons inspectors and said not using force to remove those weapons would leave the world facing "unacceptable risks."

In his prime-time news conference Thursday, Bush said disarming Iraq is the world's problem because President Saddam Hussein provides funding and save haven for terrorists.

"The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, show what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction," he said.

When asked about a possible compromise on a new U.N. resolution, he said "we're still in the final stages of diplomacy."

From what I can tell, Dubya's saying absolutely nothing new - this is the same spiel that's been coming out from Ari's office these last couple of weeks (and we all know that's bullshit). Need I point out again that saying that "we will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction," could justify intervention anywhere? And hey, since the US has been declared a terrorist state by the International Court of Justice, shall the rest of the world start forcibly disarming America's nuclear arsenal?

But I'm not watching the press conference. Is there anything remotely approaching something more substantial for him to actually make a case for war?

Comments

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

Nope. Same old shit. And using the same four or five lines to answer every question.
He's said "nucular" about 7 or 8 times. Hasn't pronounced it properly once yet. Lots of talk about "disarmorment."

[shannachie.livejournal.com]

The whole thing is just such a sad farce. I am actually quite sure that the US knows more about Iraqi weaponry than anybody else, after all they delivered it 15 years ago for the war against Iran. Some of that - if a little outdated - might well still be left. One would wish that some nations would be more careful about backing nasty dictators in the first place just because they have a common enemy to bash. It seems inevitable that one gets left with a well-equipped, CIA-counselled, just as nasty dictator who will eventually follow his own warped aims.
Foreign policy (of any coutnry) ought to be decided along the lines of longterm beneficiary aims and not "from now till tomorrow".

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Bush has, in fact, said nothing at all substantial on a case for war. (And, frankly, if he had, I'd have a hard time believing it; if he told me it was a brilliant blue sky outside right now, despite my having been outside less than half an hour ago, I'd go check).

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Hey, do you have a link about the US being declared a terrorist state? I'd *really* like to read about that...

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Basically, the ICJ in 1986 declared the US - at that time under the Reagan administration - to be in violation of international law in its support of the contra's terrorist acts against the Nicaraguan government.

The US, who initially signed up for the ICJ, revoked its acceptance of the clause granting the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction when Nicaragua filed suit in 1984. The US also failed to make an appearance at the final hearing on the merits and ultimately refused to accept the court's jurisdiction or its decision.

See a digest of the decision at http://www.mpiv-hd.mpg.de/en/wcd/dec0102.cfm or the full decision itself (really long) at http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/nicus3.html

See some background to the case and other links at http://www.gwu.edu/~jaysmith/Nicaragua.html - of note is that in 1991, Nicaragua, under pressure from the first Bush administration which made US aid contingent on this, withdrew the case, abandoning all claims to the judgment.