Back to NVUSA Global
Head U.N. weapons inspectors refute
On March 7, 2003 the U.N. weapons inspectors gave what may be their
last report to the U.N. Security Council prior to a planned U.S. and British
led invasion of Iraq. Our national news media has glossed over the
details of their verbal reports by having talking heads interpret the
presentations instead of showing sizeable excerpts and letting the
audience draw their own conclusions. During his verbal report,
Mohammed Elbaradei, the chief U.N. nuclear weapons inspector
dramatically refuted all Bush and Blair administration assertions against
Iraq regarding its nuclear program. Hans Blix, the chief weapons
inspector for chemical and biological weapons also stated they have
found no evidence the Bush Blair claims. Here are some of their actual
comments that were suppressed by most national news media outlets
other than C-Span.
Bush-Blair charges against Iraq
by Garland Favorito
author of Our Nation Betrayed
via email, March 10, 2003
a.. "The nuclear weapons program is defunct";
b.. "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities or prohibited
c.. "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import enriched
d.. "There is no indication that Iraq is attempting to import tubes for
e.. "No evidence so far has been found for mobile biological weapons
f.. "No underground facilities were found for chemical and biological
weapons (so far)".
Contrary to reports from our national news media, the head Elbaradei told
the U.N. Security Council that: "Iraq has been forthcoming", "inspections
are moving forward" and they have made "important progress". Blix told
the council that chemical and biological weapons inspections had "few
Secretary of State Colin Powell made an excellent speech about Iraqi
deceptions in its weapons declarations but then offered the illogical Bush
administration position: "We must not allow Iraq to shift the burden of
proof onto the inspectors". His position was echoed by Ana Palacio of
Spain, which joined the U.S. and British in support of the planned
invasion. She stated: "It is not the Security Council that is responsible" for
the loss of life that will ensue. She also complained about the inspections
in that Iraq should not "reverse the burden of proof onto our shoulders". It
is unclear as to what they believed were the purpose of inspections.
The foreign ministers of Germany, France, Russia, China, Syria and even
Pakistan spoke adamantly against the planned U.S. and British invasion.
Here are some of their comments:
a.. Dominique De Villipin of France - "We are completely eliminating
programs of weapons of mass destruction". "Why should we wish to
proceed by force when we can succeeed peacefully?"
b.. Igor Ivanov, Russia - Iraq has given "immediate, unimpeded,
unrestricted access to sites" for inspections. "The process of real
disamament is underway". "Is it now reasonable to halt the inspections?"
c.. Joscha Fischer, Germany - "Iraq cooperation improved", "Why should
we abandon inspections?" and "There is no need for a second resolution"
d.. Tang Jiaxuan, China - "Much progress has been made in the
weapons inspection process" and results have been achieved". "It is
highly necessary to continue the inspections".
e.. Farouk Al-Shara, Syria - "Iraq has cooperated actively and positively".
f.. Munir Akram, Pakistan - "We believe that there is no imminent threat to
Despite news media hype that these countries may eventually change
their mind, all of them made it clear that they would oppose another U.S.
and British resolution.
The foreign ministers of Mexico, Chile, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Angola and
Guinea gave relatively neutral pleas for peace and unity while Jack Straw
of the United Kingdom resorted to provable lies such as: "Iraq falsely
declared the missile range of the Al Samoud 2 missile was 150
kilometers". (The missile range of the Al Samoud 2 missile actually is 150
kilometers when tested under normal battlefield conditions with payloads
and guidance systems). Straw also stated that "200,000 are willing to put
their lives on the line for the sake of this body". Apparently he had never
heard of Michael New and other reluctant Americans who were forced to
fight for the United Nations or face prosecution by Clinton and Bush
administrations operating in direct violation of the Constitution of the
Iraq foreign minister, Mohammed Aldouri, who was allowed 7 minutes to
refute details of the near one hour presentation made by Colin Powell on
2/5/3, was allowed another 7 minutes for comments at this meeting. He
began: "It seems that the possibility of a war of aggression being
launched against Iraq has become imminent regardless of what the
security council decides and regardless of international position both
official and public." He went on to detail several specific summits in which
hundreds of countries have condemned military aggression against Iraq.
Aldouri contended that "all biological material was destroyed in 1991" and
that "Iraq never weaponized VX gas". He claimed that "Iraq will not waiver
in its continuing, proactive and rapid cooperation with Unmovic and IAEA"
and that: "U.S. and United Kingdom officials have been unable to provide
any evidence of weapons of mass destruction".
Aldouri continued: "On behalf of the people of Iraq I would like to express
our appreciation to all of the peoples of the world, in particular those of
the United States, Britain and Spain who took to the streets in the millions in
demonstrations to express their attachment to peace and rejection of
war". He contended that: "U.S. and U.K. officials have not been able to
mask their private agenda:" That being "the takeover of Iraqi oil" and "the
domination of the entire Middle Eastern region, politically and
Aldouri closed with the "We call on the security council to shoulder its
responsibility and thwart aggression against Iraq and especially let the
security council not allow a new crime to be committed in its name, which
in is impact will far surpass the crimes in the past century."
Whether you agree or not with the Iraqi foreign minister or any other
foreign minister comments, I think you will agree that the national news
media reporting perspective is a far cry from the direct quotes of the
ministers. Seven minutes of actual comments from a true opposite
perspective is worth more than 7 months of talking heads telling you what
the opposition believes.
Back to NVUSA Global