OnePeople

Bush Pledges to Use Diplomacy

After a meeting with NATO Secretary-General George Robertson, President Bush pledged to give Iraq "one more chance," and pursue disarmament through the UN. The administration was quick to make clear that if the UN would not produce a tough and persuasive resolution, the US would lead its own coalition to disarm Iraq.

There is a great deal of confusion as to what the Administration's position really is. A month ago, "regime change" was the order of the day. Since engaging the UN, that rhetoric has softened and the administration has appeared to begin defining "regime change" as disarmament. The reasoning is that if the Iraqi leadership allows for full disarmament, that would represent a profound change in the regime. Good coverage of this in another NY Times piece.

US Presents Compromise Draft to Security Council

The United States has formally submitted the compromise resolution to the UN Security Council. The US is working to ensure the resolution represents and unambiguous demand to Iraq, and the other Security Council members are working to ensure that the US does not go to war on its own.

The Christian Science Monitor reports the premise of the horse-trading that will produce the final resolution. The US will continue to work with the UN on Iraq. In return, Russia and France understand that if Iraq obstructs weapons inspections, and they impede UN action, the US "won't wait around for you to decide."

In return for dropping some more egregious violations of Iraqi sovereignty, like US-appointed inspectors and flying Iraqi nationals and their families out of the country for interviews. In return, the US will get a mention of Iraq's "material breach" of previous UN resolutions. As we discussed earlier, that phrase was used to justify the NATO attacks in Kosovo.

The Washington Post makes the excellent point that conducting interviews outside of Iraq is not only an invitation to defections, but would make it difficult for inspectors to distinguish between those with geniuinely valuable information and those who just wanted to leave the country.

The AP is reporting that the draft landed with a thud. France and Russia would still like more cautious language to prevent the US from using the resolution as a pretext for attack.

The NY Times is a little more optimistic. It makes the point that France is willing to negotiate based on the draft instead of raising a draft of its own. It also reports that France and Russia are concerned about other "hidden triggers" in the resolution, in addition to the "material breach" language, which could serve as rationale for war.

The Guardian is now reporting that the Russian Foreign Minister has registered his displeasure at the compromise: "The American draft resolution ... does not answer the criteria which the Russian side laid out earlier and which it confirms today."

Iraq Empties Jails

At noon this Sunday, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared a general amnesty, releasing nearly every prisoner in the country. "It is the act of a father forgiving his children," one prison official said. Very few details are available, even days later. It was widely reported that the amnesty was not discharged in an orderly fashion. Crowds rushed into the prisons, and at the Abu Ghraib prison, many inmates were crushed or suffocated in the chaos.

Australia's The Age covered the incredulous response from Iraqi citizens. Sky makes the important point that many missing Kuwaitis from the 1991 invasion could be amongst those freed. The most complete coverage is from the New York Times.

US Softens on UN Resolution

The United States has found a compromise with the French for UN Security Council Resolutions. The US wanted a single resolution that carries the threat of force should Iraq interfere with weapons inspections. France, leading Russia and China, wanted two resolutions: one that demands weapons inspections, and a second resolution that would carry the threat of force, but only if the first resolution had been violated. The US is expected to present a draft of the compromise resolution very soon. It will probably be ratified by the end of October.

Reuters reports that the US decided that the single resolution wasn't necessary, since a) it wasn't going to convince France to ratify it in the first place and b) if the second resolution authorizing force doesn't pass, it would have the support from enough coalition partners to proceed anyway. They described the compromise a the US making concessions, and France responding favorably.

AP
described the US action as "backing down" in the face of solid opposition during the last two days of open debate in the General Assembly.

Another AP story makes the important point that France refused to respond to the change of heart, although the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov seemed delighted.

MSNBC describes this as a "softening" by the US. They also seem to be taking credit for breaking the story of Secretary of State Powell's "secret talks" which led to the change. It adds that the compromise resolution would include the phrase "material breach." That phrase is significant, says MSNBC, because it is the same phrase cited by NATO to justify their attacks in Kosovo after the UN refused to act on the broken resolution against Serbia.

CNN
added that the US has also dropped its request to send a representative with the UNMOVIC inspectors. Remember that during the UNSCOM inspection regime, the US was caught spying on Iraq using its inspectors. That led to UNSCOM being disbanded and replaced with a presumably non-aligned international inspection team, UNMOVIC.

A later Reuters piece suggests that Russia may add its own riders to the potentially successful draft. The piece also plays up the recent "we could go it alone if we needed to" messages from the US.

Bush Kind Of Endorses an Israeli Retaliation

Following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon yesterday, President Bush announced that "If Iraq were to attack Israel tomorrow, I'm sure there would be appropriate response. I would assume the prime minister would respond. He's got a desire to defend himself." That was interpreted by many as implicit support for the Israeli position. It is widely assumed that the United States does not want Israel to become involved in any Gulf War, for fear that Israeli involvement would complicate alliances.

Many news sources treated this as implicit endorsement, but the Jersusalem Post secured a quote from Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council. McCormack says that the President's statement described an Israeli response to an unprovoked Iraqi attack, "If there's a military action (by the US), that's a qualitatively different situation."

The Jerusalem Post has since posted a revised story which changes the "Bush hedges" headline to "Bush stops short of endorsing Israeli retaliation against Iraq"

The AP reported that during their meeting, Bush did not ask the Prime Minister to stand down if attacked in the course of a second Gulf War.

The Boston Globe called this "one of the most volatile questions." The Globe also got the same clarification as the Jerusalem Post, but this time from Ari Fleischer: "That is a separate issue from, if Iraq tomorrow launched an attack unprovoked, whether they would have a right to defend themselves." The Globe also has an anonymous State Department official, who says "A lot of this is for public consumption, even if we do pay a price with Arab nations."

CNN ran the headline, but avoided parsing the President's words and quickly moved on the warning he gave to Hezzbollah over the diversion of water in Lebanon claimed by Israel.

Compromise Resolution in Peril

The New York Times is reporting that the compromise resolution being worked over by the US and France is all but doomed. After a month of negotiations, neither side has given any ground and both are equally convinced that they can get a majority vote in the Security Council. As a result, the White House rhetoric has veered towards openly advocating assassination and revolution in Iraq.

Slate's analysis of the NYT piece draws a straight line between the "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude of the White House towards a UN resolution and the effectiveness of the US diplomatic corps.

Blix Wants New Resolution

UNMOVIC head Hans Blix said for the first time that he needs a new resolution on Iraq from the UN Security Council. This is important, since many Security Council members have openly questioned the need for such a resolution. Blix also says that Iraqi waffling on inspection arrangements were inconsequential. "What we are now waiting for is not really so much for further clarifications, which would be nice to have, but rather a new resolution from the Security Council," says Blix. He also cast doubt on the 19 October resumption of inspections, saying that his team could be in Iraq within 10 days of a new resolution.

The Guardian characterized the UN activity as a "deadlock," while the BBC has Blix patiently "waiting for a decision."

Reuters framed Blix' announcement as a reaction to Iraqi waffling on the Vienna agreement. The piece also points out that although Blix says his team will be ready ten days after a resolution, the current US draft has provisions which could force a 30-day wait.

The IRNA , which can always be relied upon for a fresh viewpoint, indicates that the US may not even have the requisite 10 votes to introduce its resolution. The story also announces that Blix is not as cozy with the US as is being reported: he is balking at some US requests, including:

• Armed UN escorts for UNMOVIC inspectors


• All five Permanent Members of the Security Council become involved in inspections


• US officials would be allowed to interview Iraqi nationals outside the purview of UNMOVIC

Christian Science Monitor points out that the upcoming debate on the floor of the General Assembly underscores the frustration of member nations with the organization of the Security Council, whose power lies almost solely with the five Permanent Members. The piece also provides an excellent history of the Security Council, including its roots in the League of Nations.

UN Debate Imminent and Iraq Balks Again

Iraq presented a letter to the UN today, agreeing to admit inspectors on 19 October. The letter failed, however, to respond directly to a letter from UNMOVIC head Hans Blix, which requested confirmation of the conclusions from the earlier meetings in Vienna. Iraq says it endorsed the joint press conference that followed the meetings, and Blix's briefing notes two days after that. All other questions are being dealt with in good faith, says Iraqi UN ambassador Mohammed Aldouri. "We are not surprised that the Iraqis are once again attempting to delay and deceive," says the US ambassador's spokesman.

The UN will begin open debate on the Iraq issue on Wednesday, at the behest of South Africa, which leads the 131-nation majority "Non-Aligned Movement."

BBC has the UK Home Secretary Jack Straw less upset than US officials about the Iraq walkback. Straw also said that Iraq's response is a result of the threat of force.

NYT: Military Will Govern Iraq

The New York Times reported on Friday that the Bush Administration is considering a provisional military government in Iraq, similar to MacArthur's military government in post-war Japan. The plan includes indicting Iraqi officials for war crimes, and after "months or years" would become an elected civilian government. In the meantime, any partners in the US-led coalition would share in the duties of administration, sharing in Iraqi oil revenues in the process. This "occupation government" design is a change from the previously assumed plans to use Iraqi dissidents to form the basis for a civilian government. The White House acknowledged that it was considering a number of possible post-war sceanrios, and that this was one of the least likely.

AP has the Arab League and Iraqi dissidents opposed to the move, for specious reasons.

The Guardian, on the other hand, has the primary Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress supporting the action. The Guardian also reiterates a point in the NYT piece about the US concern over infighting between Iraqi ethnic groups, and its reluctance to place any weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an unstable government or worse, an outright anarchy.

CNN has the administration actively refuting the NYT story, citing the same press conference covered by AP and Reuters.

Secretary of State Colin Powell had an interview on National Public Radio's All Things Considered [realaudio], in which he admits that a military government is a possibility.

The Boston Globe has the plan "all but discounted," and a sources says that the previously leaked plans to use indigenous ethnic groups to form a provisional government, like Afghanistan, is more likely.

Congress Approves War Powers

The Senate approved the House resolution allowing President Bush to attack Iraq, 77 to 23, without amendement. The House version is H.J. Res. 114, and the Senate version is S.J. Res. 45. The Clerk of the House has made available the roll call for H.J. Res. 114. The Senate roll call is also available.

The New York Times provides some reasons that the otherwise dovish Senators voted for the measure. In particular, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) decided that approving the resolution was the only way to avoid war, as the President would need the resolution in order to approach the UN Security Council effectively. Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) decided that the nation must speak with "one voice" on the issue. A seperate piece theorizes that many House Democrats are in seats made safe by redistricting, and so felt more freedom to vote their conscience.

The Boston Globe adds that many opposed were concerned about the foreign policy implications in setting a precedent for pre-emptive attacks.

Horsetrading at the UN

In order to obtain an unforgiving resolution from the UN Security Council, the United States is providing a wide range of concessions to the members of the Council. The Boston Globe has China asking the US to stop interfering in Tibet and Taiwan. France and Russia are asking for concessions on Iraqi oil. Russia would also like American sympathy with its actions in Georgia.

BBC points out that Iraq owes Russia $8 billion. They also quote a Russian diplomat saying that the British are doing a great deal to keep the United States under international law.

House Approves War Powers

The House approved a bipartisan bill, 296 to 133. The resolution gives the President the power to use "necessary and appropriate" force against Iraq to ensure the national security of the United States and enfoce UN Security Council resolutions. It also encourages, but does not require, the President to exhaust political and diplomatic methods before using force. Should the President decide to act against Iraq, he must explain his actions to Congress within 48 hours. The President must also report to Congress every 60 days on the progress of the war. The Senate is expected to pass a similar bill on Friday.

The BBC highlights the fact that the resolution passed in the wake of the CIA report which may contradict the assumptions of the President's policy. The Beeb also does not explicitly mention that UN approval is unnecessary for American action.

The New York Times is carrying excerpts from the speeches on the floor of the Senate.

ABC News puts the lack of UN involvement high up, and points out that a majority of House Democrats voted against the bill, despite the endorsement of Majority Leader [redacted] Gephardt (D-Missouri).

CNN highlights the amendement to the Senate bill from Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) which would make an American attack contingent on UN approval, and force a second vote from Congress if the UN did not approve. Needless to say, the amendement died 75-24.

The AP points out that the resolution received stronger support from the House than the resolution authorizing the Gulf War in 1991.

CIA: Iraq Will Use Terror If Attacked

The CIA Director, George Tenet, provided the long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to Congress. The two significant findings:

* Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction to create a "blackmail" scenario to increase its power in the region
* Iraq will not attack the United States unless it is provoked, since it has no interest in doing so.

This second conclusion seems to run against the Bush Administration's policy towards Iraq, and many media outlets interpreted the report as the CIA's effort to moderate the President's policies in the region.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that the report did not contradict the President's policy, as the blackmail scenario was the most significant part of the report.

The Internation Herald Tribune offers an excellent overview of the story, and is a good place to start.

The Scoop is good enough to produce the full text of the White House press conference.

MSNBC points out that the NIE is a classified document, and that the CIA only declassified portions of the document at the behest of the Democrat-controlled intelligence committee. So what was revealed in the NIE is not the complete report.

LA Times is reporting that the Pentagon is at "war" with the CIA over the Iraq NIE. The Defense Department would apparently like to hear more about the Iraqi links to Al Qaeda. There is concern in Congress and at the CIA about the "politicization" of intelligence; the possibility that political agendas could contaminate the CIA's analyses.

Bush Makes Case

President Bush addressed the nation last night to lay out his policy for Iraq. No new evidence was presented -- some compared it to "closing arguments" that a prosecutor would make at the end of a trial. The three major networks did not carry the speech, indicating that the White House did not request the coverage. That did not stop the White House from being somewhat disappointed over the lack of coverage. Read more for the major points.

The New York Times provided their full transcription of the President's speech.

Why Iraq?

Weapons of Mass Destruction, in the hands of a "murderous tyrant" who attacked his neighbors and has attacked his own people.

Why Now?

It will only get worse if we wait. We know he has harbored terrorists. He could provide chemical and biological weapons to them, and they can easily be delivered, unlike conventional or nuclear weapons.

Won't this distract from the war on terror?

No. It's the same war.

Do they have a nuclear weapons program? When will they have the bomb?

Yes, they do. They will have the bomb very soon.

Why not send in UN inspectors?

We've already tried that, and Iraq keeps messing with them. The UN needs a new way of enforcing its resolutions. The UN must be able to go wherever it wants to perform surprise inspections. It must also be able to take Iraqis and their families outside Iraq for interviews, so they can't be intimidated.

What should Iraq do?

Stop developing weapons of mass destruction, and comply with all UN resolutions. If they do that, we won't have to attack. It's more likely, though, that they won't cooperate.

Won't attacking Iraq make the Middle East unstable?

It can't get worse. Overthrowing Saddam will allow the Iraqi people to flourish.

Congress Argues, Filibuster Likely

The House and the Senate are well into the debate, but all the drama is in the Senate. House Democratic leaders have already pledged to back a bipartisan bill. The Senate Democrats are more unruly. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) is backing a resolution, while Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) leads the opposition. In any case, a resolution is almost guaranteed to pass. To register his disapproval, Senator Byrd has pledged to filibuster the Senate vote, delaying it for up to 30 hours. A Congressional resolution is important not just for constitutional reasons, but because President Bush needs the backing of congress in his push for new UN Security Council resolutions.

"This is one of the most consequential questions we will deal with for years to come," said House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) via the AP. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) says the President had "failed to make a case for a unilateral and pre-emptive strike on Iraq. War is simply a failure of diplomacy." House Majority Leader [redacted] Armey (R-Texas) finally got off the fence, endorsing the President's plan after hand-wringing over the morality of a pre-emptive American strike. He finally decided that an American attack would not be pre-emptive at all, since the end of the Gulf War in 1992 was technically a cease-fire. Presidential hopeful Senator John Edwards came out strongly against the President's effort, referring to his "gratuitous unilateralism." Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massacheusets) agrees, saying in the Senate that the President's policy "flies in the face of international rules of acceptable behavior," leaving America without "the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad."

Slate points out that the Senate debate is being conducted in an almost completely empty room. Senator arrive to make their speech, and leave. They read each other's remarks in the Congressional Record. This, says Slate, is "particularly galling."

The Washington Post liked the exchange between Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) who "traded colorful references to history, the Constitution and other topics." Much of the Post article covers Senator Warner's responses to the opposition.

MSNBC gave Senator Byrd top billing for his filibuster, and provided these handy bulletpoints on the narrower compromise resolution pending in the Senate:

• Urge the United Nations to enforce strict new rules on inspecting Iraq and eliminating its weapons of mass destruction.


• Give the president the authority to act unilaterally if the United Nations failed to crack down on the Iraqi threat.


• Require the president to notify Congress, no later than 48 hours after commencing military action, on why diplomatic efforts were inadequate.

Blair Links Iraq, Israel

British Prime Minister Tony Blair told members of a Labour Party conference in Blackpool last Tuesday that is important to restart the Israeli-Palenstinian peace talks in light of the pending UN action against Iraq. He alluded to the UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which together call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and a dialogue for final resolution of the problem. He expressed concern over a double-standard in applying resolution to Iraq and Israel.

Almost no American sources carried this story, so we turn to some overseas outlets.

The Syndney Morning Herald provided this quote from Blair:

"The Palestinians living in increasingly abject conditions, humiliated and hopeless; Israeli civilians brutally murdered. I agree UN resolutions should apply here as much as to Iraq. But they don't just apply to Israel. They apply to all parties."

SMH provides fairly balanced coverage of the whole situtation.

The Jersusalem Post covers an aspect of the story not mentioned elsewhere: Israeli diplomats had publicly specualted that the US was encouraging Blair to make the link. It was a non-starter, with God and everyone denying it. The article points out that pulling Israel into the Iraq issue would complicate the Administration's diplomatic efforts, and is last thing that the Bush Administration wants.

The Islamic Republic News Agency, the Iranian state news agency, covers the Arab response: a cool reception, with cynicism about Israeli and US motives abound.

Modest Progress on UN Resolution

There appears to be modest progress on a new UN Security Council resolution. The US has long demanded that any new resolution on Iraqi weapons inspections have "teeth," citing a decade of obstruction by the Iraqi government. France, China, Russia and others have stressed that diplomatic and political efforts are more effective than putting a gun to Iraq's head. A consensus is building around a resolution which mentions dire consequences of attack, but does not explicitly authorize the use of force.

Washington Post says that UNMOVIC's Hans Blix objected to a US proposal that would allow UNMOVIC to pull Iraqi scientists and officials out of Iraq for interviews.

The LA Times has a two bullets for the American reasons the resolution needs "teeth":

• 
  The
  Washington believes that weapons inspectors will have no leverage over Iraq unless the threat of force looms.
  


• A measure now that does not approve the use of force could lead to another, potentially time-consuming diplomatic clash some months down the road.

At the same time, LAT mentions that White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer responded to questions about the President's possibly flexible policy on the UN conditions: "'How do you know the president has not moved?' he asked. 'I submit to you that much of these negotiations are, as you would expect, diplomatic conversations that take place in private.'"

The BBC takes a completely different tack, not unexpectedly, saying that the US has met strengthening opposition at the UN. The Beeb agrees, though, that everyone thinks a new inspection regime is necessary.

Blix Visits Washington

UNMOVIC head Hans Blix visited Washington to meet with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. They told him to "not take no for an answer," and demand to inspect whatever he liked, whenever he liked, in Iraq. They also told him to wait until the quickly-evolving UN Security Council resolution was passed before he began inspections. Blix has said that despite the talks with Iraq in Vienna, there were "loose ends" that a new Security Council resolution would resolve. The Security Council has basically agreed that new inspection rules are necessary, but there is a strong disagreement over whether the rules should be enforced by threat of force -- France, China and Russia would all like to leave the military option for a second resolution to be enacted only if Iraq proves uncooperative.

Reuters has Blix amenable to the delay: "We are ready to go but we have not booked our tickets yet."

ABC News gives a nice set of bullets on the "loose ends" that Blix mentioned:

• access to all sites, including presidential palaces


• freely conducted interviews, without Iraqi minders present


• total overflight rights, with security guaranteed


• the right to take any samples out of Iraq.

CIA Stiffs Congress on Iraq Documents

The Central Intelligence Agency has refused to provide documents on its role in Iraq to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The Committee wants to know what the CIA is doing in Iraq, and how it can be coordinated with military and political efforts. No reason was given for the refusal, but many speculate that the report would have highlighted the infighting between the Pentagon and the CIA over their activity in Iraq -- and could possibly be construed as second-guessing the President. This comes at a time when the CIA already in hot water with Congress for bungling September 11th.

The New York Times plays up the fact that CIA Director George Tenet sent his deputy to refuse Congress, saying that he had a meeting scheduled with the President. NYT also ties this refusal to the battle Vice President [redacted] Cheney is having with the GAO over documents relating to energy policy.

A follow-up piece in today's NYT has Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) absolutely livid, accusing the CIA of obstructing the Constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight duty. It also mentions new legislation introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) which would dissolve the CIA, and create an intelligence "czar," who would coordinate efforts in the US intelligence agencies.

The Washington Post describes the argument somewhat more clearly. The CIA is supposed to issue "National Intelligence Estimates," on Iraq: one for weapons of mass destruction, and another for coventional forces. They are traditionally focused on long-term issues in foreign countries. They summarize the opinions of different agencies, and are useful for revealing internal disagreements. The CIA says that NIEs are not used to assess US activity in foreign countries, as Congress wants. They are intended to cover only foreign activity in foreign countries.

Duel!

The Vice President of Iraq, Taha Yassin Ramadan, proposed a duel between US President George Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, with UN General Secretary Kofi Annan as the referee. The AP says that he wasn't obviously joking, but reporters detected irony. "Iraq has two vice presidents, and Ramadan did not say whether he or Taha Muhie-eldin Marouf would take on [redacted] Cheney," says AP. CNN aired the disappointingly straight-faced response from White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Fleischer says it was an "irresponsible statement" that did not justify a "serious response."

Iraqi Reconstruction Plan Taking Shape, Slowly

The very difficult question of how to keep Iraq stable after overthrowing Saddam Hussein is still unanswered. Most agree that the eventual goal is a federal democracy, and everyone agrees that a foreign army will have to occupy Iraq for many years before the country can become stable again.

The LA Times reports that the US is considering a council, consisting of the main opposition groups, that would eventually lead the country into a federal democracy. The premise is that a federal democracy would allow each ethnic or religious group a degree of autonomy, and still provide a central government to keep Iraq together. The LAT article also mentions that the US is opposed to using overseas dissidents, and would rather use a "natural leader" that would emerge during the war. The LAT gave no play to the fractious infighting among the Iraqi opposition.

Reuters reported that the best-known Iraqi opposition party, the Iraqi National Congress, promised to increase oil production once it regained control of the country. This comes on the heels of comments from a US State Department official, who said that the world economy could improve after a war in Iraq, once the victors "open up the spigot on Iraqi oil." The piece mentions that the US Administration does not completely trust the INC with the reconstruction effort, with some factions claiming that the INC is ineffective and unpopular in Iraq itself.

Washington Post has Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the INC, criticizing the US for bungling its effort to create a new government. Dissidents and defecting soldiers need a "home to go to." The piece describes many in the opposition skeptical of the Administration's commitment to a new government, especially in light of the congressional resolution which make only passing mention of a new government: "'The signals right now are utterly inauspicious,' said Rend Rahim Francke, executive director of the Iraq Foundation." The US reluctance could be explained by two Shiite opposition groups, the Iraqi National Accord and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, who want to hold off on declaring a new government.

The WaPo piece was actually a followup to a New York Times article from two days before. The NYT piece describes the INC as an "umbrella" organization for the Iraq opposition. The NYT piece does provide an excellent history of the INC, which provides some explaination for the US reluctance. The INC was created by Ahmad Chalabi, a wealthy and well-born Shiite muslim, and the CIA to support the overthrow of Iraq in 1992. Since then, the group seems to have gone astray -- the NYT says both the State Department and the CIA want nothing to do with Chalabi now. The piece does not explain the reasons for the split. The piece has stories about a number of Iraqi defectors who were brought to American intelligence agencies by the INC, and were completely ignored -- some have not even been interviewed. This may change soon, as the Pentagon (which is sympathetic to the INC) is taking over a $600,000/month program from the State Department to fund intelligence gathering in Iraq.

ABC News provides another explaination for the US chilling to the INC: the Russians are attempting to hitch their wagon to the INC, hoping to tap some of Iraq's oil. It also mentions that any dreams of oil are offset by the cost of repairing the infrastructure, which could run into the billions. A witty quote from Daniel Yergin, author of The Prize, a history of the oil industry: "'People are not going to just whip out their checkbooks and start writing checks with nine zeros,' says Yergin. 'What a company needs to know is, is there going to be some political stability? How vulnerable are they going to be? They're also going to want to know, are their terms going to be stable? Are the rules of the game going to change?'"

Another Washington Post piece uses the recently re-invigorated Kurdish parliament to describe the immensely complicated politics of the Kurds in northern Iraq. They have until recently been divided by infighting, to the point where Washington had to broker a cease-fire in 1998. Turkey, who adamantly refuses to support a Kurdish state for fear it would stir up its own Kurdish population, plays a huge role here -- the US needs Turkish support for the war in Iraq. WaPo describes the failed Kurdish overthrow of Iraq during the Gulf War. That coup attempt, says WaPo, was plagued by infighting amongst the Kurds. That is true, but the piece shamefully failed to mention that the failure was due in large part to a lack of US support.

UN Resolution Getting Messy

Now that UNMOVIC representative Hans Blix has reached an agreement with the Iraqi government on weapons inspections, President Bush's attempt to gain Security Council authorization on the use of force in Iraq has become significantly more difficult. France, Russia and China have all openly rejected the draft Security Council resolution, and the United States is now scrambling to prevent a veto.

The Boston Globe has many Republican hawks criticising the Administration for a half-hearted lobbying effort in the Security Council. The Globe also has hawks upset that Bush is vying for Security Council approval and another inspection regime in the first place: "It's us participating in our own deception."

The BBC has Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, saying that the US is opposing the new inspections because it knows that Iraq is innocent and will lose its pretext for war.

Reuters has Russia moving closer to the US, allowing that it would support new resolutions authorizing force if the weapons inspectors needed them. Canada moved away, though, citing the danger of destabilizing the Middle East. It also mentions a statement from the Commerce Department, which claims a war with Iraq would boost the world economy by eliminating terrorist threats and increasing the availability of oil on the work markets.

CNN has British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in support of new resolutions after the inspections agreement, but did not go so far as to say that the inspections shouldn't proceed without those resolutions. CNN also spends some time on the alternative French proposal for a two-step process, in which the Security Council would first demand a new inspection regime, and then pass a second war resolution if Iraq does not comply. This proposal seems to have the support of France, Russia, and China, giving it a majority with the permanent members of the Security Council, all of whom have veto power.

The LA Times has a a telling quote: "We see it as a hard-line text designed for negotiation," said a council diplomat who opposes the U.S. proposal. "These are terms almost no one can accept. If we did, it would be an invitation for war." LAT also cites an interesting back-room twist on the recent Russian softening: the US will attempt to guarantee that Russia will be able to recover $8 billion owed by Iraq from any government that replaces the current Baath Party, and that Russia will have a role in a newly legitimate Iraqi oil industry.

MSNBC has British Prime Minister Tony Blair disappointed that access to presidential sites is restricted. They also describe Iraq as "dividing the Security Council," which is a suspect notion, as America is undoubtedly the protagonist here.

The BBC also has the Chinese Foreign Minister advocating a political solution: "The top priority at this moment is to let UN weapon inspectors return to Iraq as soon as possible and start work smoothly. Relevant actions of the Security Council should take this as the aim and be conducive to promoting a political resolution to the Iraqi issue."

Iraq Resolution Moving

President Bush announced in the Rose Garden yesterday that he's reached agreement with the House on the wording of a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. He was flanked by a boatload of congressmen and senators from both parties, with the conspicuous absence of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). The President slightly softened his position on military action, saying only that it "may be inevitable." The New York Times has text of the resolution. The Senate is still divided, and debates are likely to begin next week.

The House resolution mentions the war on terrorism specifically, as well as Iraq's violations on UN Security Council resolutions. It specifically authorizes the use of force under the War Powers Act for the purposes of defending the security of the United States and enforcing UN resolutions.

The Washington Post has the Senate opposition fighting a losing battle. The alternative Biden-Lugar resolution, which emphasizes UN cooperation and more limited authorization, is likely to get bogged down in amendements. WaPo describes Daschle cancelling a planned press conference on news of the agreement.

ABC News puts high up that Bush finally agreed to certify that political and diplomatic alternatives had been exhausted before any military option is used. He has to make that report within 48 hours of any military action. ABC also has Daschle conceding that the resolution was an "improvement," but not yet completely satisfactory. Interestingly, ABC describes Daschle as not being invited to the Rose Garden ceremony.

The New York Times coverage included an succinct summary of the difference between the White House/House resolution and the Biden-Lugar alternative:

The major difference between the two resolutions is that the version agreed upon by the House and the president today authorizes Mr. Bush to use force to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, leaving the White House free to determine what is relevant. In contrast, the Biden-Lugar language specifies that force is authorized to secure the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its ballistic missile program or to defend the United States and its allies against those programs.

The NY Times also has a piece on the ramifications of House Minority Leader [redacted] Gephardt's endorsement of the White House resolution. The end result is a huge schism in the Democratic party, possibly setting the stage for a presidential run for Gephardt in 2004.

MSNBC picks up on the flagging support for the alternative resolution, with Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) conceding that the Senate will probably follow the House: "I'm a realist."

The BBC focuses on the fact that the resolution still allows the President to use force unilaterally if he does not gain approval from the UN.

CNN provides a summary of the resolution:

The bipartisan resolution includes language:

• Supporting the president's effort to get a new resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council.
  


• Limiting the use of U.S. military force against Iraq, and the scope of any military operation to dealing with "current ongoing threats posed by Iraq" and to forcing compliance with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions
  


• Requiring Bush to make a determination to Congress prior to ordering military action that further diplomacy will not succeed in bringing Iraq into compliance
  


• Requiring Bush to make a determination that using military force against Iraq is consistent with and will not detract from the ongoing effort to take action against terrorists and terrorist organizations
  


• Requiring regular consulting and reporting to the Congress
  


• Requiring the White House, consistent with the War Powers Act, to report to Congress every 60 days on military operations and planning for "post-military" operations including any plans for peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
  

White House Advocates Assassination

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was asked about the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that a war in Iraq would cost $9 billion dollars a month. Fleischer agreed that the non-partisan CBO's estimate was a lot of money, and said it is more "than the cost of a one-way ticket." After a somewhat dramatic pause, he added: "The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less." When asked to expand on that, Fleischer repeatedly said that "regime change is welcome in whatever form it takes." He then cooled things off with "I'm not stating Administration policy, I'm stating the obvious."

Somewhat surprisingly, this episode was not picked up with much vigor. Perhaps the outlets simply weren't that surprised. Many tucked the story inside other stories on reactions to the UNMOVIC agreement with Iraq.

The Washington Post produced a thorough piece, including comments from an international studies expert from Johns Hopkins, who drew the distinction between a political leader and a military leader -- Saddam Hussein is a military leader, and so the rules that normally apply to political leaders do not apply.

The AP, though, trotted out disapproval from the Brookings Institution: "Generally, administration officials refrain from talking so coarsely in openly advocating the murder of others." More to the point, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations said "It's gross."

UN, Iraq Agree on Inspections

UN and Iraqi negotiators agreed Tuesday on the details of the impending weapons inspections. The US announced that, as predicted by Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday, the inspections are not sufficient and that the US-Britain resolution in the Security Council will change the terms of the inspections. Iraq immediately announced that it will not cooperate with any new changes to the inspection regime. US objections notwithstanding, the inspections could begin in two weeks.

The most specific details on the agreement come from the Washington Post and the LA Times:

• Unrestricted access to any site for surprise inspections, "presidential" sites still require appointments


• No limit on size of inspection team, and no requirement to have an Iraqi minister on-site for inspections in "sensitive areas." Both conditions were sources of manufactured delays in the past


• Inspection aircraft may now use Saddam Hussein airport, instead of another 50 miles away


• Iraq will resume reporting "dual-use" technology, which it stopped since the 1998 bombing

WaPo was also alone in mentioning the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official who hosted the talks. This official pointed out that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under the previous inspection regime than during the entire Gulf War. He also reminded reporters that the IAEA was able to get full cooperation during nuclear inspections four years ago, and the IAEA was able to pronounce Iraq free of nuclear weapons programs in 1998.

The AP has US State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher saying that even though the US has more stringent demands in its new resolution, it had no objections to the weapons inspectors making arragements ahead of time. The AP also says that the four years of Iraqi information on weapons programs was given to the UNMOVIC team.

The LA Times also points out that an agreement between the UN and Iraq is exactly what Russia, China and France need to convince the Security Council that attacking Iraq is unnecessary.

Shame on the Boston Globe for describing the "presidential" locations as off-limits. The coverage leaves the distinct impression that the sites will not be available to inspectors. They seem to have picked this up from White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer:

''These are places that Saddam Hussein doesn't even go to,'' Fleischer told reporters yesterday. ''These are government facilities, government property, where who knows what is going on, and there's a good reason Saddam Hussein does not want people to go there.''

Bush: Don't Tie My Hands

President Bush announced that the bipartisan Biden-Lugar resolution is too restrictive, and is even weaker than the original 1998 congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq. He warned Congress to not "tie my hands."

The argument is about the scope of the pending resolution in Congress. The Bush Administration would like authorization to use force throughout the Middle East, while the compromise resolution from Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Senator [redacted] Lugar (R-Indiana) would limit his authority to Iraq alone. Another resolution put forth by Senator Carl Levin, would explicitly require a UN mandate before any US action.

The House is much closer than the Senate to agreement with the White House. MSNBC is reporting that debate on the measures will begin on Wednesday.

In the NYT , Lugar and Biden are described as "scrambling" top win White House approval of the alternative resolution. The NYT also mentions the reason for the delay on the vote until Wednesday: too many proposed changes from Democrats. The Senate leadership had to wait until Wednesday to avoid a very messy debate on the floor. The piece then describes a number of moderate Republicans joining the liberal Democrats in criticising the original Bush resolution. NYT also says the alternative resolution "would emphasize the defense needs of the United States and its allies," rather than national security concerns.

The NYT also describes a fourth alternative to the Bush, Lugar-Biden and Levin resolutions. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has a resolution which only authorizes the use of force if Iraq does not comply with UN Security Council resolutions within thirty days. She described the alternative as an attempt to broaden support for the Administration, by calming fears of unilateralism.

The NYT piece then tackles the Senate filibusters. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), a longtime critic of the President's policies, could delay a resolution for two days. Any floor debate on the resolution is stealing time from the Homeland Security Department, whose authorization is being filibustered by Republican senators. They don't want the Senate's version passed without satisfying the White House's demand for control over the hiring and firing of workers -- in the form of non-union staffing for the department.

The NYT prophesies that the debate could stretch into next week, when a vote can finally take place.

Blair Wants Ultimatum

British Prime Minister Tony Blair says that an international coalition must demand the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that demand must be backed by force. He said that failure to act as a coalition will imperil the legitimacy of the United Nations.

AP focuses on the speech as an attempt to galvanize support for action on Iraq amongst a very divided Labour Party.

UNMOVIC Talks Winding Up

With the US-British resolution expected to show up as early as today, the BBC has Secretary of State Colin Powell giving the UN weapons inspectors a heads-up: "I think [the inspectors]... will have to wait and see whether or not the Security Council comes up with new guidance or additional resolutions." UNMOVIC head Hans Blix replied, "I'm asked by the Security Council to do this job, and I do it. I try to."

Powell is talking about, among other things, the US plan to arm the inspectors, and to create no-fly, no-drive zones around inspection sites which was also reported by the Washington Post today. That plan, and others in the ever-changing draft resolution, could change the parameters of any UN-led inspection.

This LA Times op-ed reminds us that Blix is due to report to the Security Council on Thursday, which may or may not happen if the US-British resolution gets there first.

Reuters seems to think that Iraq's behavior at the UNMOVIC talks may soften the impending UN resolution. The idea is that France, Russia and China are promoting a two-step approach which would not threaten military force until a preliminary inspection resolution has been violated. A well-behaved Iraq could support their position. The Bush Administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have both been openly skeptical about both the two-step strategy and the UNMOVIC talks.

Yet another LA Times op-ed says that this is a split between the US and the UN, a natural side-effect of President Bush's "uncompromising" rhetoric. LAT is concerned that the US unilateralism is undermining the UN's authority, almost guaranteeing a war. Anonymous UN diplomats quoted in the piece seem to agree.

Driving the point home, CNN is presaging that Tony Blair's speech to the Labour Party today will make the case that enforcing inspections by force from the outset is the only way to guarantee Iraqi cooperation.