Saturday, December 7, 2002 Posted: 12:46 AM EST (0546 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- On the eve of Iraq's official declaration on weapons of mass destruction, the United Nations Friday announced the document will not be given to the U.N. Security Council -- which demanded the declaration -- until weapons inspectors have examined it and possibly even edited out parts.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Friday that any parts of the declaration relating to the proliferation of prohibited weapons "or any other very sensitive thing, we'll say cannot be circulated to anybody."

The 15-member council agreed to the procedure after discussing "the risks of releasing parts of this declaration that might help to achieve proliferation of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons," Blix said.

A Western diplomatic source told CNN the Security Council agreed to the procedure partly because the United States, Russia, and other countries are concerned about releasing information that would provide "a training manual for how to build weapons of mass destruction."

But CNN has learned that some in the Bush administration were blindsided by the announcement.

"We want that stuff and not after Blix gets it," a senior administration source told CNN. "We want the whole thing."

The source said he was working phones "trying to get this straightened out ... this isn't over yet."

But another senior administration official seemed satisfied with the decision. He said he was confident the five permanent members of the Security Council will read the entire document "eventually."

Gen. Hassan Amin, head of the Iraqi Monitoring Directorate, is expected to hand the voluminous declaration Saturday to a U.N. diplomat in Baghdad. The diplomat will then hand-deliver the documents to UNMOVIC chief Blix in Cyprus, IAEA director-general Mohammed ElBaradei in Vienna, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York.

U.S. officials want to analyze the declaration and compare it to U.S. intelligence on Iraq.

Baghdad has indicated the document will contain more than 10,000 pages, but will maintain that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

That's a claim the United States and Britain have called an absolute lie.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the two agencies searching Iraq for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, also have a million pages of information Iraq from past inspections and intelligence gathering.

Blix said the declaration will list any weapons of mass destruction programs as well as dual-use programs -- things Iraq says are used for civilian purposes but could also serve military purposes.

Some of it will be in Arabic, and the report will likely not be available on CD-ROM, Blix said.

It will take time to translate and analyze the long, complex report, he said. U.N. officials have said it may take days or weeks.

The Security Council does not expect to hear from Blix until Tuesday, at the earliest, about when he might distribute the declaration, one diplomat said.

And Blix's initial report to the council describing weapons inspectors' analysis of the declaration may not happen until December 16, the source said.

IRAQI DECLARATION AND CONSEQUENCES

If the United Nations finds the declaration to be incomplete or untrue, it could find Iraq in "material breach" of Resolution 1441, which calls for Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction programs and to disarm.

The U.S. government has said if Iraq does not comply and fully disarm, it will lead a coalition to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein through military force.

Mohammed Aldouri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, said the report will contain a "very huge" amount of information as demanded by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted unanimously in November, calling for Iraq to disclose its weapons of mass destruction programs and to disarm.

It will have "all the information they need," Aldouri said Friday.

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reiterated the Bush administration's warning not to trust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who he said has a proven record of lying to the United Nations.

"Sometimes one of the best ways to hide or to deceive is to come out with such a voluminous document that it makes people miss the things that aren't in there," he said. "Just because Iraq turns over a phone book to the United Nations doesn't mean that nobody inside Iraq has an unlisted phone number."

"We won't be fooled ... into thinking that the size alone dictates that Iraq has complied," Fleischer said.

The U.N. resolution said that if Iraq provides false information or leaves out pertinent information and fails to comply with the implementation of the resolution it will constitute a "material breach."

U.S. officials have said that if the United States finds a material breach, it may call for a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss the use of military force against Iraq.

And no matter what the council decides, President Bush has said the United States may decide to lead a coalition to disarm Saddam through military force.

However, an administration source told CNN that top White House officials have agreed that the United States will not declare war on Iraq based on a material breach in the resolution.

The administration is concerned it "wouldn't play well" in the international community for the United States to declare war soon after the arrival of the declaration, the source said.

It would take more time and "a body of obstructionism" from Iraq for the United States and allies to launch military action on Iraq, the source said.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2002

Answers

sounds like Blix is trying to avoid anything happening in Dec/Jan as far as war is concerned. not that the US needs him to decide such a thing.

I'm beginning to really dislike Blix.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2002

I thought this was a very ominous development.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2002

Yeah, like the paranoid side of me says "something" nasty is going to happen on US soil to give Bush the okay to invade.

Gotta take a break from reading conspiracy sites for awhile! I'm starting the think that Elvis might still be alive . . .

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2002

Basically, what it boils down to, is it's us against the world. Now THAT's a paranoid thought!

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2002

[Funny I should say that because:]

Sunday, December 8, 2002

Anti-U.S. opinions surging, poll finds

By ANN McFEATTERS BLADE WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - A massive poll by the Pew Research Center of 38,000 people in 44 countries, conducted face-to-face in 63 languages, indicates there is a widespread surge of anti-Americanism, not only in Muslim countries but around the globe.

The poll, finished in October, indicates that attitudes toward the United States are most negative in the Middle East, but that criticism of America in such friendly allies as Canada, Germany, and France is more widespread than in the developing nations of Africa and Asia.

[Oh. But look who heads up the thing. You don't suppose there's any bias, do you?] Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under President Clinton and now head of the international advisory board of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, said that discontent with and even hatred of America is growing in 19 out of 27 countries with observable opinion trends because there is only one superpower serving, in effect, as the envied rich man on the hill. When there were two vying superpowers, there were two targets for the world’s unhappiness. [This from a Jewish woman who tried to negotiate with Arab countries, knowing full well they don't like women in positions of power and they don't like Jews. Pah!]

But she said that, while much of the post-9/11 sympathy for the United States has dissipated because of disagreement with U.S. policies, the poll shows that admiration for the American people, culture, and technology continues. Overall, in 35 out of 42 countries, a majority of people is drawn to American culture and technology.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said that the Bush administration’s threat of a potential war with Iraq is creating the impression around the world that the United States cares too much about its own goals and ignores what the rest of the world thinks. "Huge majorities" in France, Germany, and Russia oppose war to oust Saddam Hussein and see the violence in the Middle East as a greater threat than Iraq.

Even in Great Britain, the staunchest U.S. ally, half the public opposes war with Iraq. In Turkey, a linchpin of U.S. military strategy in a possible war, 85 percent of Turks oppose letting U.S. forces use bases in their country to launch a war. [In the UK, anti-Amerianism has been a well-entrenched feature of the left for decades. The media in Britain has been far more successful in persuading people that left-leaning policies are best, hence the anti-American attitude. When Thatcher was in power, the US was a lot more popular in the UK.]

But Mr. Kohut stressed that, while a war with Iraq could be costly to the United States in diplomatic terms by creating more anti-American sentiment, there is also a global sense that Saddam Hussein is a threat to regional stability. [Well, which is it? Is he a threat or isn't he and if so, who has the wherewithal to take care of him? ANybody want to help? Sheesh!!!]

That could mean that if a war, which Ms. Albright thinks is coming, is quick, relatively free of casualties, gets rid of Saddam Hussein, and does not create more chaos in the region, the fallout against America might be less than Mr. Kohut expects. But overall, he thinks the poll data shows anti-American sentiment will grow, not decrease. And, the poll notes, most people in other countries think a war with Iraq is coming because the United States wants more oil. [And whose fault is that, that people have a perception it's only because we need more oil? It couldn't possiboly be because Clinton and Albright have been TELLING people that, could it?]

But in America a majority thinks U.S. policies are in place for humanitarian reasons. "The American public is strikingly at odds with the publics around the world in its views about the U.S. role in the world and the global impact of American actions,’’ the report says.

Ms. Albright, a Democrat, said that the United States needs to spend more time building alliances and explaining its policies. She attributes part of the widespread belief that the United States acts mainly in its own self-interests without regard to others to the first year of the Bush administration, when the United States pulled out of a number of pacts and conferences. [Bullshit. It was shown at the time of Kyoto that no European nation ahd signed the damn thing either. Hypocrites.]

Overall, as 2002 ends, the world is not a happy place, the lengthy report says. "At a time when trade and technology have linked the world more closely together than ever before, almost all national publics view the fortunes of the world as drifting downward. A smaller world, our surveys indicate, is not a happier one,’’ it notes.

The biggest global problem is seen as the rapid spread of AIDS. The second global worry is ethnic and religious violence. In every country, the top local concern is listed as a poor economy. Crime and political corruption also rank high, particularly in Latin America. [Thus it has ever been. Before AIDS in Africa, it was cholera, dysentery, malaria, etc. If AIDS doesn't get them, the other diseases will.]

The war on terrorism is highly unpopular in Muslim countries [no shit, Muzzies're the ones who want to kill us!!!], the Pew polling found. Despite President Bush’s insistence the war is not with Islam, solid majorities in Muslim countries see suicide bombings as a legitimate defense in what they perceive as a western attack on their religion. In Pakistan, a crucial ally in the war on terrorism, 81 percent of the public resents the spread of U.S. ideas and customs. [And we are to blame for allowing the populace to experience how good MacDonald's can be??? Hell, if the people didn't want US ideas and customs, they wouldn't take to them, would they?]

In Russia, however, 60 percent of Russians have a favorable view of the United States, compared with 37 percent in 2000.

In one notable finding, the poll indicates that around the world, there is general satisfaction with a person’s national government, especially the leaders. Both President Bush and Russian president Vladimir Putin are more highly regarded in their own countries than are the national governments. That is not true in Great Britain or Canada, where Tony Blair and Jean Chretien, respectively, have low favorability ratings

The Pew Center - which supplied the questions to polling firms hired in various countries - said the wording of questions was not changed in any country because of official pressure, but that authorities refused to let some questions be asked of people in China, Vietnam, and Egypt.

The Pew Research Center, based in Washington, is an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics, and public policy. The center is sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2002

F- em!

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2002