Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Azure
I think I proved my point though, Looger, if you care to read this thread. Ritter does not have enough credibility that you can refer to him to justify your arguement.
|
does that mean wikipedia does?
seriously though, point taken, but i really don't have to look far to find how badly the US pooched the UNSCOM situation.
here's the 'trusted' mr. annan going wishy-washy, from defending the US to questioning its involvement:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/cr...ews/250126.stm
The reports said that Mr Annan had evidence of a systematic operation in which American agents were able to listen to secret communications between the Iraqi security bodies responsible for protecting President Saddam Hussein. The stories sparked a diplomatic storm and lent credence to Iraqi claims that UN weapons inspectors were US spies.
Mr Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, said: "We not only have no convincing evidence of these allegations, we have no evidence of any kind. We have only rumours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/379458.stm
In a BBC interview, Mr Annan said it was worrying that the Americans had never denied the allegations, which he admitted had not only undermined the UN inspection agency, Unscom, but also future disarmament regimes.
UNSCOM was compromised, all the crooked crooks agree and the media had been grilling them for years aboot it.
everyone involved is compromised.
US apologists are just going to have to get over the FACT that they were caught red-handed. tough luck, but that excuse is not usable, don't even try it.