Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Gianni Riotta, Rai TV, Italy Interviews US President Bush

The ANNOTICO Report

These are the Lies that Bush repeated to Italian Journalist Gianni Riotta without  Questioning , which I remedy: 

(1) BUSH: ..  "everybody thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction"                                                                                                  

BECAUSE, Bush , Colin Powell, and Condi Rice ALL assured the WORLD that they had UNDENIABLE Evidence that for National Security reasons they could not reveal.When in Reality they took ALL Intelligence that did not support their position and either ignored it, or had it deleted in a rewrite.

(2) BUSH: That "Security Council Resolution  1441 was 15 to nothing .." (to invade Iraq )                                                                                               

WRONG: US Ambassador Negroponte stated at the time that UN Res.1441 " contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, th e matter will return to the Council for discussions as required" The UK Ambassador repeated that statement, and the Syrian Ambassador stated: Res 1441 "would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq"

(3) BUSH:  "getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing..... , because that is the place from which the terrorists launched their attacks....

WRONG: Bin Laden is Fundamentalist Muslim and Hussein was Secular, and they were Strong Adversaries, NOT Allies!!!!!! 

Interview of President Bush by Gianni Riotta, Rai TV, Italy

Saturday, June 07, 2008

WASHINGTON, June 7, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX

The following is an excerpt from an interview of President Bush by Gianni Riotta, Rai TV, Italy:

....Question:  You're aware that history will ask you about Iraq. What do you think, now when you look back to Iraq, especially after the report [The Congressional Report} yesterday, are you still happy with all these positions?

PRESIDENT BUSH : Well, look, I want to remind people, the report yesterday was one of many reports that -- everybody thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I will remind people -- and one of the things important about history is to remember the true history. And so the Security Council Resolution  1441 was 15 to nothing on Saddam Hussein: disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. European nations -- France, Great Britain -- supported that  -- because everybody thought he had weapons of mass destruction, including many of the people who -- of the Democratic Party here in the United States. You should listen to their words, and listen to their quotes.

And so, absolutely, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing. And it was -- we're all disappointed the intelligence wasn't what it was. But now the challenge is to help this young democracy survive. And a democracy in the heart of the Middle East is going to be, in my judgment, a powerful part of change. And we've got to work to free people in the Middle East from tyranny, because that is the place from which the terrorists have launched their attacks......

THE FULL INTERVIEW IS AT: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/interview-president-bush-gianni-riotta-rai-tv-italy/                               

 A resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

Resolution Statement

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

  • That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited ar maments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
  • That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq?s obligations".

Passage of Resolution

On 12 September 2002, President Bush spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government. These included:

  • "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
  • U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
  • Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
  • Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
  • Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, People's Republic of China and France.

In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.

The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should NOT  automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "all necessary means" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

The Security Council Vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.[citation needed]

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

 

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

 

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

 

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

 

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

 

Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.

 

Implementation of Resolution

Iraq agreed to the Resolution on 13 November. Weapons inspectors returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The inspectors had been absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox

Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared 122mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. P. 30 As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed.

Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution....By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its AMDs, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors.

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister Jos? Mar?a Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq  According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.

Aftermath

In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."

The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administration's own inspectors reported.

 

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."

 

The review was conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer' s analysis. "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."

Factual questions about the Iraqi declaration still remain. To date the contents have still not been made public for independent scrutiny. When the UK government was asked to state where in the Iraqi government's declaration there were false or inaccurate statements, the reply was that it was a confidential matter and that "huge quantities of documents remain to be translated."

 

The ANNOTICO Reports Can be Viewed (With Archives*) on:

Italia USA: www.ItaliaUSA.com * [Formerly Italy at St Louis]

Italia Mia: www.ItaliaMia.com *

Annotico Email: annotico@earthlink.net