***Dave Does the Blog

Our friends, the Saudis.

The French reaction to Powell’s presentation today says it all:

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin called Powell’s evidence “disturbing,” but he, too, said it fell short of proving the need to resort to force.
He said that in light of evidence suggesting Iraq is attempting to disguise its capacity to produce and use chemical and biological weapons, the “inspection regime must be strengthened.” But, he added, “The use of force can only be a final recourse.”
“Given the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate because of a failure to cooperate on Iraq’s part, we must choose the decisive reinforcement of the means of inspections,” he said.

In other words, yeah, we have even more evidence that Iraq is not complying with it’s “last chance,” so let’s … um … keep looking for more evidence.

The point of the inspections was not to stop Iraq’s programs, but to force Iraq to show they were stopped. They’ve clearly done the opposite — demonstrated that development programs have continued, and that Iraq thinks it can keep playing a shell game. Extending the inspections does nothing at this point. “Decisively reinforcing” the inspections regime does nothing to alleviate Iraq’s “failure to cooperate.”

That the French want that to be the next/continuing/perpetual step shows that their agenda is not the UN-sanctioned disarmament of Iraq, but simple opposition to the US (if not fear of what an invasion of Iraq would further demonstrate about France’s dealings with that country during the sanctions regime).

This could get interesting.

Have I mentioned we’re overseas the 8th to the 19th?

Interesting indeed.

The New Republic has an excellent editorial out today on the moving bar for war, as Bush has complied with each objection of the anti-war left (“Gotta get Congressional approval!” “Gotta get a Security Council resolution for inspections!”), only to have the bar ratcheted further up as Iraq still fails to comply (“Gotta get another resolution!” “Gotta have more inspections!” “Gotta give Saddam yet another last chance!” “Gotta get consensus from every country on Earth!” “Gotta do the Hokey-Pokey on the Balance Beam!”).

There are too many good passages in this article to quote all of them, but one stands out.

The most curious feature of moderate anti-war sentiment, at the Times and elsewhere, is its refusal to engage with the central question: Would Iraq, if permitted to rebuild its nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal, pose a threat to the United States? We believe the answer is yes. The example of North Korea demonstrates that when a hostile, irrational state obtains nuclear weapons, it immediately intimidates its neighbors, opens the possibility of passing such weapons to terrorists or other enemy regimes, and leaves the United States with few diplomatic tools to work with other than appeasement. Saddam’s megalomaniacal aspirations and repeated pattern of aggression make him an even less attractive candidate to join the nuclear club than Kim Jong Il.

What continues to astonish me is all the folks arguing that the US shouldn’t tackle Iraq until after (since it now is conveniently popping up as a problem) the North Korean issue is resolved. After all, isn’t North Korea a bigger threat?

Well, maybe it is — but it also has a much greater capability to inflict harm on its neighbors, between it’s ability to simply shell Seoul into a flaming wreck (as it started to do back in the 90s) to its quite possible nuclear capability. And, as the quote above points out, once a Kim (or a Saddam) has nukes, it’s too late to do much of anything.

Good reading.

(via Volokh)

The New Republic has an excellent editorial out today on the moving bar for war, as Bush has complied with each objection of the anti-war left (“Gotta get Congressional approval!” “Gotta get a Security Council resolution for inspections!”), only to have the bar ratcheted further up as Iraq still fails to comply (“Gotta get another resolution!” “Gotta have more inspections!” “Gotta give Saddam yet another last chance!” “Gotta get consensus from every country on Earth!” “Gotta do the Hokey-Pokey on the Balance Beam!”).

There are too many good passages in this article to quote all of them, but one stands out.

The most curious feature of moderate anti-war sentiment, at the Times and elsewhere, is its refusal to engage with the central question: Would Iraq, if permitted to rebuild its nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal, pose a threat to the United States? We believe the answer is yes. The example of North Korea demonstrates that when a hostile, irrational state obtains nuclear weapons, it immediately intimidates its neighbors, opens the possibility of passing such weapons to terrorists or other enemy regimes, and leaves the United States with few diplomatic tools to work with other than appeasement. Saddam’s megalomaniacal aspirations and repeated pattern of aggression make him an even less attractive candidate to join the nuclear club than Kim Jong Il.

What continues to astonish me is all the folks arguing that the US shouldn’t tackle Iraq until after (since it now is conveniently popping up as a problem) the North Korean issue is resolved. After all, isn’t North Korea a bigger threat?

Well, maybe it is — but it also has a much greater capability to inflict harm on its neighbors, between it’s ability to simply shell Seoul into a flaming wreck (as it started to do back in the 90s) to its quite possible nuclear capability. And, as the quote above points out, once a Kim (or a Saddam) has nukes, it’s too late to do much of anything.

Good reading.

(via Volokh)

Some folks are a little put-out that a tapestry recreating Picasso’s famous Guernica mural, which hangs outside the UN Security Council chambers, is being covered up during various Iraq-related media opportunities.

The painting, which shows the destruction of the Spanish village of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War, is a very fitting image for the UN, to the extent that the UNSC is there to help prevent war and destruction. Is some sort of US-backed conspiracy to ramrod through an Iraq resolution behind the draping of a big UN banner and collection of flags?

Well, maybe not. The claim is that the usual place for media briefings and photo ops, which has a big UNSC logo behind it, is too crowded for the large swarms of journalists that are now collecting whenever anything Iraq-related is discussed. The new location is backed by the hind end of a rearing horse, and, supposedly, some folks thought that a bit undignified for the speakers, or confusing to viewers.

I dunno. It does sound a little like Ashcroft’s draping of statues at the DoJ, but it could be innocent. On the other hand, Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach, so it might be worthwhile for the UN to try to figure out another angle (so to speak) to handle this problem.

Because, after all, it’s not like Guernica is necessarily just embarrassing a reminder to those who favor war on Iraq. It could equally be used as a reminder of how innocents suffer when tyranny is not confronted early on.

(via BoingBoing)