Just who the hell is the German foreign minister?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


If behavior 30 years ago is indicative of current judgmental capacity, then I suppose you are comfortable with having a drunken, coke-snorting frat boy in the Oval Office?

well i voted for the wooden nerd from tennesee myself. (And his hawkish holywood bashing running mate as well) And if all i had to go on was dubyas word, i would have real difficulties - but in all cases where the admin has said "trust us" it was more than just dubya - and in the situation under discussion it was Powell.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


No, perhaps that was the case in the past, but absolutely not today (and by today I mean, at least since he´s foreign minister). This judgement is simply not correct. He´s gone a long road from the 70ies to his current political positions.

If that is indeed the case, I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441. Not make a case that 1441 shouldnt have been passed, but why he believes that Saddam is in compliance with it.

Rather than hysterically shouting "Excuse me, I'm not convinced"

(I note that Fischer may be getting hysterical both because of his troubles with Schroeder, and perhaps isolation within his own Green party (?) but for all that, until such time as he resigns he's still the spokesman for FRG policy, and it seems not unreasonable to ask if his current statements make more sense in context of his 70's history than of his 90's change of ways. )

[HershOstropoler]

"I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441."

He's not unconvinced of Saddam's non-compliance, he's unconvinced of the need for war.

The article is utter crap. My respect for the WP has fallen even further.

[lord of the mark]

An American writer defends Joska Fischer, and takes issue with Kelly's piece. Definitely worth reading.



Slate magazine: a defense of Fischer

[Dinner]

To be far to the WP they usually run a whole host of different articles in the opinion section. This would be just one and the normally run an op-ed piece as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I would like him to lay out exactly why he believes Saddam is in compliance with UNSC 1441."

He's not unconvinced of Saddam's non-compliance, he's unconvinced of the need for war.

The article is utter crap. My respect for the WP has fallen even further.

So let him say - I am convinced UNSC res 1441 has benn violated by Saddam, but i beleive 1441 was wrong, and teh UNSC should repeal it.


Wrt the WP - it was an op ed piece - a coumne- the Wapo has columnists who cover the ideological spectrum, and who often take position different from the paper's editorial line. Kelly was digging nastily into Clinton for years, when the WaPo was one of his chief defenders.

[Mathemagician]

so, Holy Warrior, you cannot believe that joschka fischer has changed from a left-leaning rebel to a serious politician in 35 years ?
why trust Vladimir Putin then, the former KGB leader (or was it vice leader ?) ?
Jassir Arafat, who condoned terrorism not long ago.
im sure someone politically and historically more inclined could have given better examples.
i bet your beloved george w.bush has some dark chapters too in his life. after all, he is a texan and we all know texans like to shoot people, right ? (getting cynical here, granted)

anyway,
your point is simply stupid.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So let him say - I am convinced UNSC res 1441 has benn violated by Saddam, but i beleive 1441 was wrong, and teh UNSC should repeal it.

1441 does not include a war declaration in the case of non-compliance. Furthermore, the only authority who can tell in detail that Iraq doesn't comply is the chief inspector Blix, nobody else. At least not with facts that are called nonsense or wrong claims by Blix (Powell) or have been proved poor plagiarism (British).
Considering the poor body of evidence I think it's fully understandalbe that Fischer shouts "Sorry, but I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld, who didn't even try to give good arguments but only says that Germany isolates itself by not following the US...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


1441 does not include a war declaration in the case of non-compliance. Furthermore, the only authority who can tell in detail that Iraq doesn't comply is the chief inspector Blix, nobody else. At least not with facts that are called nonsense or wrong claims by Blix (Powell) or have been proved poor plagiarism (British).
Considering the poor body of evidence I think it's fully understandalbe that Fischer shouts "Sorry, but I'm not convinced" to Rumsfeld, who didn't even try to give good arguments but only says that Germany isolates itself by not following the US...

1441 calls for "serious consequences" in the event of non-compliance. As powell has stated, everyone on the UNSC knew that meant that if Saddam did not comply, the UNSC would gather to vote on war.

The resolution did not state that Blix is the only one who can determine compliance. It left it to the UNSC to determine that.

Powell did not call call Powell's claims non-sense in his report today. Most of Powells claims he simply ignored. Those he mentioned he said were open to alternative interpretation.

I will also note that at NO point did Blix say that Saddam IS in compliance with UNSC res 1441. He seems to imply that that does not matter at this point. Whether it does or not is not for Blix to decide, but for the Council. If the Council decides that Iraqi defiance of its own resolution promising serious consequences is not a matter worth taking action on, it will be incumbent on the US and its allies to decide what to do in light of that fact.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by lord of the mark Most of Powells claims he simply ignored. Those he mentioned he said were open to alternative interpretation.

I will also note that at NO point did Blix say that Saddam IS in compliance with UNSC res 1441. He seems to imply that that does not matter at this point.

This is where I am starting to have a hard time. I am NOT in favor of attacking Iraq. And I still think the connection to terrorism is tenuous at best. However, it is hard for me to see how any fair-minded person could dismiss Powell's evidence of non-compliance, as Blix appears to have done. I think the UN is failing to provide a viable option by refusing to take effective action on what seems obvious.