San Fran Blogging

If I weren’t in SF, I would write something more in-depth. (I go on vacation and all QC suffers. Sorry.)

Anyway, this is just an exercise in correcting the record…Michael Cohen “wrote on”: Democracy Arsenal that

bq. Saddam kicked out UN inspectors in 1997 and prevented them from doing their job for more than 5 years.

Actually, the UN withdrew the inspectors in 1998 after Iraq stopped cooperating with them.

bq. It wasn’t just the US that believed Saddam had WMD. Read the UNSCOM reports, they make clear that the United Nations believed Iraq was not being honest about its WMD programs.

The UN certainly detailed the various ways in which Iraq had failed to account for all of its past WMD programs. That’s not the same as saying Iraq had them.

The UN Security Council voted 15-0 in 2002 that Iraq was in “material breach” of UN resolutions regarding their WMD program. Moreover, the Council warned of “serious consequences” for continued Iraqi recalcitrance. (Read the UN resolution here).

So the UN Security Council did in fact determine that their [sic] was a “defensible case” for war in Iraq – it wasn’t just Will Marshall.

Bzzzt. The resolution made it clear that the Security Council wanted to convene again to decide if force should be used. Here are two of the relevant paragraphs from the resolution:

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, 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;*

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Moreover, there was still a serious debate regarding the proper interpretation of the resolution, even after its adoption. Read “this piece”: I wrote back in the day.

In any case, the notion that the UNSC “determine[d] that their [sic] was a ‘defensible case’ for war in Iraq” is utterly wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *