posted on June 4, 2005 11:13:43 AM new
MORE SERIOUS PEOPLE SAYING BUSH LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT HIS IRAQ WAR. WE SURE HAVE HAD A LOT OF SERIOUS PEOPLE CALLING BUSH AND HIS GANG LIARS STARTING WITH CLARKE AND O'NEILL.
Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing
Saturday, June 4, 2005 1:00 PM EDT
The Associated Press
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.
Bustani, who says he got a "menacing" phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.
The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an "unfortunate precedent" and Bustani a "man with merit."
"Many believed the U.S. delegation didn't want meddling from outside in the Iraq business," said the retired Swiss diplomat, Heinrich Reimann. "That could be the case."
Bolton's handling of the multilateral showdown takes on added significance now as he looks for U.S. Senate confirmation as early as this week as U.N. ambassador, a key role on the international stage, and as more details have emerged in Associated Press interviews about what happened in 2002.
A spokeswoman told AP Bolton, keeping a low profile during his confirmation process, would have no comment for this article.
Bolton has been criticized for supposed bullying of junior U.S. officials and for efforts to get them fired. Bustani, a senior official under the U.N. umbrella, says Bolton used a threatening tone with him and "tried to order me around."
The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime.
An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.
In 1997, the Brazilian arms-control specialist became founding director-general of the OPCW, whose inspectors oversee destruction of U.S., Russian and other chemical weapons under a 168-nation treaty banning such arms. The agency, based in The Hague, Netherlands, also inspects chemical plants worldwide to ensure they're not put to military use.
In May 2000, one year ahead of time and with strong U.S. support, Bustani was unanimously re-elected OPCW chief for a 2001-2005 term. Colin Powell, the new secretary of state, praised his leadership qualities in a personal letter in 2001.
But Ralph Earle, a veteran U.S. arms negotiator, told AP that he and others in Bolton's arms-control bureau grew unhappy with what they considered Bustani's mismanagement. The agency chief also "had a big ego. He did things on his own," and wasn't responsive to U.S. and other countries' positions, said Earle, now retired.
Both Earle and career diplomat Avis Bohlen, who retired in June 2002 as a top Bolton deputy, said the idea to remove Bustani did not originate with the undersecretary. But Bolton "leaped on it enthusiastically," Bohlen recalled. "He was very much in charge of the whole campaign," she said, and Bustani's initiative on Iraq seemed the "coup de grace."
"It was that that made Bolton decide he had to go," Bohlen said.
After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq _ and other Arab states _ into the chemical weapons treaty.
Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.
In a March 2002 "white paper," Bolton's office said Bustani was seeking an "inappropriate role" in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council _ where Washington has a veto.
Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was "completely irrelevant" to Bustani's responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief's job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with Washington.
Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S. motivation: "Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn't rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted."
Bustani and his aides believe friction with Washington over OPCW inspections of U.S. chemical-industry sites also contributed to the showdown, which went on for months.
In June 2001, Bolton "telephoned me to try to interfere, in a menacing tone, in decisions that are the exclusive responsibility of the director-general," Bustani wrote in 2002 in a Brazilian academic journal.
He elaborated in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde in mid-2002, saying Bolton "tried to order me around," and sought to have some U.S. inspection results overlooked and certain Americans hired to OPCW positions. The agency head said he refused.
Bustani, now in a sensitive position as Brazil's London ambassador, indicated to the AP through an intermediary that he would have no additional comment.
The United States went public with the campaign in March 2002, moving to terminate Bustani's tenure. On the eve of an OPCW Executive Council meeting to consider the U.S. no-confidence motion, Bolton met Bustani in The Hague to seek his resignation, U.S. and OPCW officials said.
When Bustani refused, "Bolton said something like, `Now we'll do it the other way,' and walked out," Rigg recounted.
In the Executive Council, the Americans failed to win majority support among the 41 nations. A month later, on April 21, at U.S. insistence, an unprecedented special session of the full treaty conference was called.
Addressing the delegates, Bustani said the conference must decide whether genuine multilateralism "will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise."
Only 113 nations were represented, 15 without voting rights because their dues were far in arrears. The U.S. delegation had suggested it would withhold U.S. dues _ 22 percent of the budget _ if Bustani stayed in office, stirring fears of an OPCW collapse.
This time the Americans, with British help, got the required two-thirds vote of those present and voting. But that amounted to only 48 in favor of removing Bustani _ and seven opposed and 43 abstaining _ in an organization then with 145 member states.
Bustani appealed the decision to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization in Geneva, a judicial body to which agencies in the U.N. family submit personnel cases. The OPCW, meanwhile, named a new director-general, Rogelio Pfirter of Argentina.
In a stern rebuke issued in July 2003, the three-member U.N. tribunal said the U.S. allegations were "extremely vague" and the dismissal "unlawful." It said international civil servants must not be made "vulnerable to pressures and to political change."
Noting that Bustani did not seek reinstatement, it awarded him unpaid salary and 50,000 euros, or $61,500, in damages. He said he would donate the damages to an OPCW technical aid fund for poorer countries.
Reimann, the former OPCW conference chairman, says he looks back with sadness at what was done.
"I think there's no doubt Bustani wanted to serve the organization, to get wider membership and all these things," the Swiss diplomat said. "He was fighting very bravely to make it work."
posted on June 4, 2005 11:25:38 AM new
Getting Bolton confirmed and in his job will be a GREAT achievement for our country. Hopefully that will take place this coming week.
We need someone in there that has a back-bone to stand up against the weinies in the UN and set them straight...and he'd be the BEST for this job.
----
Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.
LOL...clinton didn't agree with that...and said so himself after we invaded Iraq. So...that statement, alone, is WAY off.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 4, 2005 12:36:37 PM new"The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime."
This article, published May 15, 2002 illustrates the Bush military focus. Already, the justification for war was clearly "regime change". Weapons of mass destruction was not a real consideration. The lie that weapons of mass destruction were ready to fire in forty five minutes was used to whip the American citizens into a patriotic war fervor.
The axis of nonsense
The Guardian
Andrew Murray
Wednesday May 15, 2002
Washington's war is going à la carte. Each passing week is placing both new targets and new justifications for attack on the menu for military action. There is now not the slightest pretence that the scope of the US's regime-change wishlist is in any way tethered to the attacks of September 11. Instead, the world is witnessing the rapid emergence of a plan to dispose of any government hateful to the sight of US ultra-conservatism.
When the excuse changed to "regime change"
First there was the Taliban. Beyond them lay the improbable axis of evil - at the apex of which is Iraq, clearly still the next target for the unilateral attentions of the Pentagon. Now the administration's planning has moved "beyond the axis of evil", in the words of John Bolton, one of the creatures of the night occupying sub-cabinet rank in the Bush regime. The under- secretary of state identified Syria, Libya and, above all, Cuba as states that needed to come round to Washington's view of the world before Washington comes round to them, guns blazing.
"The rationale behind the Bolton addendum to the axis - threadbare is perhaps too kind a word for it - is that the latest "rogue" trio are preparing to threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore paradoxical that Mr Bolton's boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, was at almost the same time asserting that weapons of mass destruction were no longer really here nor there. When it comes to removing Saddam Hussein from power, Powell said, the issue of weapons inspection was now to be considered "separate and distinct and different" from the need for "regime change".
That may seem prudent: with no justification to hand, why not make it clear that justifications are no longer required? So rumours of possessing weapons of mass destruction may serve as sufficient pretext to get a regime on to the "must change" list, but the subsequent provable absence of them will not get it off again. Only the British government is still playing along with the pretence. Everyone else has twigged that this is not a "war on terrorism", nor a "war on weapons of mass destruction". Nor can the nudge-and-a-wink sponsors of the coup against Venezuela's elected government convince anyone other than hapless Foreign Office junior Denis MacShane that they are leading a "war for democracy".
It is instead an open-ended war to make the world congenial for the most chauvinistic elements in US public life. Every government in the world they dislike is to be removed, every grudge they have been nursing from the cold war (there can be no other reason for targeting Fidel Castro) is to be exorcised. Military force may be used in some cases; while in others the well-tried methods of destabilisation, sanctions and coup will be deployed.
Where evidence and argument fail, the administration relies on effrontery. The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, demanded that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez "respect the constitution" on the day he was restored to office, following the failure of the US-backed military coup against the constitution. Bolton, Rice et al seem to regard themselves as masters of the universe, and show every sign of planning to implement their maximum global programme before the US people gets the chance to elect anyone slightly more sensible.
Optimistic Europeans have clung to the illusion that September 11 would help Bush rediscover the rest of the world. If it has, then that world is to be called Texas. That may recommend itself to a British prime minister eager to dock benefits from the impoverished parents of children who truant, a Lone Star idea if ever there was one. However, he is almost alone. Even governments and peoples who may admire the US economic and political system increasingly fear the brazen lawlessness of this administration, and worry at the implications of the endless war, with its ever-expanding list of governments to be ousted.
Already the axis of evil embraces governments of widely differing kinds on three continents. Now, three more countries have been casually added to the hitlist. And who can believe that this represents the limit of US ambitions? The Bush administration and its friends don't seem to like Europeans much either. Tony Blair may imagine that by supporting the war to make the world safe for the US, he is helping in some way to make the US safe for the world. Every utterance from John Bolton and his cronies exposes the hollowness of that pretension. Britain appears to be determined to defend the ever-increasingly indefensible - right over the edge of the abyss.
posted on June 4, 2005 01:06:15 PM new
I'm happy that this President was re-elected....but I'm even more happy and thankful that he was elected in 2000 and was at the helm to deal with terrorist supporting nations like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Imo, he'll go down in history as one of our GREAT Presidents.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 4, 2005 02:00:10 PM new
Helen, thanks for your post I never saw that article. It another piece that backs up what a lot of us has been saying all along. BUSH flat out lied about Iraq.
I am sorry to say this but no kidding often when I read Linda_K post's I just feel I am reading words from a Evil person. I know I don't have all the descriptive words at my disposal and maybe Evil is not the right word to use to describe Linda. I sure hope so anyway but I will be Damned if I can understand how a woman like Linda_K can live with herself.
The thing I know for sure Linda_K is very threatened by you. She is on your back all the time with no good reason. I guess your strong will and to the point posts just blows her away and she doesn't like it.
Linda_K throws the HATE word around a lot. It scares me to think I am seeing real hate from her. I am beginning to really believe that on Linda_K's part Evil equals Hate. I really hope I am wrong or using the wrong words but man-o-man this woman is really out there. I am afraid she has gone beyond reason..
Keep up your good work Helen I enjoy and learn a lot from your posts.
posted on June 4, 2005 03:59:07 PM new
Bear & dbl, you both have nothing to say about the articles I see. I guess you both can't defend your failed leader any longer. Looks like BUSH'S LIES have overwhelmed you guys. Now all you both can do is act like children. You shouldn't be so hard on yourselves after all millions of others made the same mistake and voted for Bush.
Bush must be wondering what happened to all his support. Bush says he speaks to God maybe God can guide him to a better life and better decisions.
ONCE AGAIN NOTHING FROM BEAR OR DBL ABOUT THE ARTICLES JUST MORE OF THE SAME OLD BULL ROAR.
posted on June 4, 2005 06:31:51 PM new
Another insult from the "good christian" Revy....""I have a bus...it's a school bus. A short school bus that took many of the drooling, helmeted, leftist to school when they were young.""
posted on June 4, 2005 06:52:00 PM new
Amen,Amen,Amen and more Amens to you Colin. I hope your T-shirt sales are doing well even right wing wacko republicans with need to eat. I am thinking of buying one of your "best sellers" to use it as a dart board. Amen to that too Mr.Colin.
posted on June 4, 2005 07:28:36 PM new
What I'd like to know is where's all the oil the anti-war, ultra lefties here said was the REAL reason we were invading Iraq.
They went on and on for MONTHS about it...this WAR is all about OIL...it's all about OIL. Lives for OIL.
hmmmm...appears they were wrong once again. I'd think by now they'd be embarassed at how MANY times they've been proven wrong about their false accusations.
But nope, they're still searching for new ones. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 4, 2005 08:23:49 PM new
Well it's time to open my big mouth and piss off some people. I've just about had it with all the anti-Bush winers. Boooo Hooooo!! I fought in Panama in 89 with 7th Special Forces Group (A) and again in Desert Storm and if I was still in the Army I would be proud to serve my country again. I some times feel like this country is made up of nothing but a bunch of spineless pansies and hate to think what would happen if a real war ever broke out. Incase everyone hasn't noticed this is not a friendly lovey hug your neighbor world, never has been and unfornatually probably never will be. I wish there was some way to show all the cry babies the horror that Sadam caused his people in his years of power. It starts to sink in when you have been over there for a while and start to wounder why there are so many people with only one hand. Why, because of tyrant's like Sadam that cut them off for simple crimes like stealing a loaf of bread to fead their starving family. The only bad thing a Bush ever did was leave that scum bag in power the first time. Your probably the same people complaining about Gitmo and other prison's run by the military. Well boo hoo, someones piss landed on a book. What do you think they would do to us. It's not hard to guess, chop off your head. In case you people with the wool pulled over your eye's haven't noticed, Sadam was the modern day Hitler. I was wrong before, a Bush has made more than one mistake, not only should we have gotten him the first time, but we should have shot him this time and not taken him alive. The best place for him is 6 feet under.
Linda K, keep up the good work setting these coward's that live in a little closed box straight.
My advise to every person young enough is to enlist in the military and take your little closed mind to some of these countries and see what we are actually doing. It's called saving lives.
posted on June 4, 2005 08:33:23 PM new
The oil got blown up by the insurgents stupid. Plus the Chinese need a lot more oil because of all the jobs Bush and his buddies shipped off shore.Trying to change the subject again are ya old girl? There I just gave you something to go BLAH BLAH and lie about since you won't stay on subject.
Now lets get back to how Bush lied to the American people to start his Iraq War. Lets get something straight I am from the left and I am not against war. I am only against a bad war that was started by lies form your bad leader BUSH.
Linda_K in this country right this very minute there are thousands up thousands of people with a broken hearts because of the lies Bush told the American people. Now you are trying to change the subject to oil?
posted on June 4, 2005 08:59:04 PM new
Hey Mike, the only "coward's" I see on this board are the ones that can't face the truth about how bad a leader and liar Geo Bush is.
You said, "Well boo hoo, someones piss landed on a book" did someone here besides you say anything about pissing on a book? If so show me because I missed it. I did hear something from the Pentagon about that but no where on this board did I see it.
What the topic of this post is more and more proof is coming that shows Bush lied to the American people to start the Iraq War.
YES BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR HIS LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
posted on June 4, 2005 09:06:20 PM new
Well I honestly don't think he can get impeached for that and if HE could then all the rest of the Presidents could have had the same fate.
Now that was a very silly thing to say bigpeepa, but I have to admit I laughed for quite some time. A little board humor doesn't hurt once in a while.
_________________
posted on June 4, 2005 09:30:11 PM newTHERE IS A GOD!!!
Thank you so very much, Mike. I'm a Marine mom and son served for 8 years, and was just recently discharged. [might help explain why I see this so differently from most here]
And what I read is difficult for me to understand. I really appreciate you coming in and giving them your side of how things really are and sharing your thoughts and experiences with us.
Thank you, also, for being one of those brave American's who served our country, proudly. We can never repay out debt to you.
And on your comment: Well it's time to open my big mouth and piss off some people. I do it everyday....don't let it stop you from returning.
posted on June 5, 2005 02:43:10 PM new
Nice post Mike,
Your right about the cowardly leftist on this board.
I stop in from time to time to put them straight. Thank the gods above (or whereever) There’s a good group of middle of the road sane people on the board to put the pinko cowards in their place.
They talk and type their BS on this site from the nasty, musty, darken, government subsidized housing. They hate the very government that gives them food stamps and heating oil.
posted on June 5, 2005 02:59:31 PM new
So Markie wants a free hand in what he and his comrades do in Iraq....sorry, but they represent us! And they damn well better clean up their act and/or watch that their buddies stay clean.
If they want OUR support then they better give US support !
He says, "We're perfectly aware
that, to the media, we are expendable pawns in a political chess game"
The MEDIA ? How about the lying #*!@ who put them there! What a brainwashed idiot!
He says, "You won't be seeing it too much in the media because I'm sure some new photos of abuse will show up pretty soon."
Poor dumb jerk....does he realize that his commander-in-chief has forbade anyone to photograph the coffins of his dead comrads ?
If this is your best ammunition...you lose!
MIKE says, "if a real war ever broke out"
Tell that to the loved ones of soldiers KILLED and MAIMED in Iraq for a LIE!
HOW DARE you belittle their deaths!!!!!!!!!
You SHOULD be in Iraq with all the OTHER terrorists!
posted on June 5, 2005 03:07:31 PM new
rabid hatred from a woman who HIDES behind her monitor.
And all can see just how much she supports our troops.....not one bit.
No appreciation for what they've done...etc.
She disrespects them beyond belief....while she HIDES behind her monitor so afraid and upset when others found out her first name. Brave thing that she is.
Forget ever asking to her defend this great Nation of ours...it would NEVER happen. She'd be off hiding somewhere...blasting everything those brave enough to fight were doing.
Saddam would have used her for one of his 'human shields'.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 5, 2005 03:11:59 PM new
linduh don't apply your sick and twisted emotions to someone else. You are the bloodthirsty "let's kill everybody we can" person.
And what's with the stupid comment about hiding behind a computer ?
How STUPID are you ....you post in here with no computer or monitor ?
I didn't hear abot YOU being in Iraq! Why didn't you volunteer and go over there and help out.???
WHY?
Why didn't you linduh...there's planes going there every day ?
Why didn't you go?
Just think of the fun you'd have watching the torture and bloodshed...
YOU are the coward who can't address posts proving you wrong...you hide....how brave is that?
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 5, 2005 03:13 PM ]
[ edited by crowfarm on Jun 5, 2005 03:36 PM ]
posted on June 5, 2005 03:59:29 PM new
Crowfart, I don't think your hateful. You’re just misled by anything anyone on the left writes or says.
BTW I found the Blog that I believe is Crow's family album. See if you can guess which one she is.
(Clue)
She's not using the family name on this message board.
If you look you may find some other complainers on her site. I believe it’s a whole family of conspirers.
posted on June 5, 2005 06:57:41 PM new
And what's with the stupid comment about hiding behind a computer ?
How STUPID are you ....you post in here with no computer or monitor ?
I didn't hear abot YOU being in Iraq! Why didn't you volunteer and go over there and help out.???
WHY?
Why didn't you linduh...there's planes going there every day ?
Why didn't you go?
Just think of the fun you'd have watching the torture and bloodshed...
YOU are the coward who can't address posts proving you wrong...you hide....how brave is that?
