|
Berlusconi: "I tried to talk Bush out of invading Iraq"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...1605037,00.html
| quote: |
Silvio Berlusconi, one of George Bush's closest allies, says he repeatedly tried to talk the US president out of invading Iraq, in comments to be broadcast today.
In the television interview, which goes out on the day the Italian prime minister flies to Washington to meet Mr Bush, Mr Berlusconi says he even enlisted the help of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gadafy, in behind-the-scenes efforts to stop America going to war.
"I have never been convinced war was the best way to succeed in making a country democratic and extract it from an albeit bloody dictatorship," he says. "I tried on several occasions to convince the American president not to wage war."
His version of events, recounted in an interview with the La7 private TV station, with excerpts reported by the Apcom and Ansa news agencies at the weekend, was backed by his deputy, Gianfranco Fini, leader of the former neo-fascist party, who said: "We tried right up to the end to persuade Bush and Blair not to launch a military attack."
Mr Berlusconi said one of the "other ways and other solutions" he had tried was a "joint action" with Colonel Gadafy, whose country is a former Italian colony.
Coming after Lewis Libby's indictment capped a crisis week for the Bush administration, Mr Berlusconi's remarks will be seen by many in Washington as treacherous. Italy's prime minister is standing for re-election in just over five months and polls indicate that his support for Mr Bush is a major handicap. He became closely identified with Mr Bush soon after coming to office in 2001 and avoided criticism of US policy in the run-up to the war. In March 2003 he told parliament the use of force against Iraq was legitimate and Italy could not abandon the Americans "in their fight against terrorism".
Yesterday Mr Berlusconi's aides played down the remarks, pointing to two earlier occasions on which he had alluded to "doubts" and "reservations" about the invasion. Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by the Berlusconi family, quoted the prime minister as saying in November 2003 he had "expressed disagreement with Bush on the military action in Iraq".
His latest remarks were nevertheless at odds with public perceptions of his stance and astonished his political rivals. "What's going on?" asked Romano Prodi, the leader of the centre-left. "Has he finally realised the war was wrong? Well, let him say so. He told Bush? Well, it means he doesn't count for anything at all."
Though Italian troops did not take part in the invasion of Iraq they have played a prominent role since. Italy's 3,000-strong contingent is the third largest in the US-led coalition. Mr Berlusconi has repeatedly indicated that he intends to reduce Italy's presence, and an initial withdrawal of 300 soldiers took place in September.
But at least one opposition politician suggested the prime minister might have been trying in advance to limit damage to his administration from the "CIA-gate" scandal. The document at the origin of the affair, which indicated that Saddam Hussein's regime tried to buy uranium in Africa, was allegedly forged by an Italian with links to the intelligence services.
Last week La Repubblica suggested it had been passed to the US. The government has acknowledged that the head of Italy's military intelligence met the then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in September 2002, shortly before the document was distributed to US intelligence agencies. But it said the uranium dossier played no part in their talks. Last night Mr Berlusconi gave full backing to his spymaster, Nicolo Pollari, who is alleged to have passed on forged documents. Arguments about the uranium claims are at the heart of the Plame affair in Washington.
|
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
I'm not at all surprised. I'm sure many diplomatic channels were opened in an effort to talk Dubya out of going to war. However, the neo-con agenda was set in place long before and they didn't want to miss their window of opportunity. They had to continue full steam ahead, playing off of the public's emotional response to the tragedies of 9/11.
| quote: | We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.
- David Rockefeller (to the United Nations Business Council, 1994) |
| quote: | January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm |
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Who's more stupid?
Guy A: Thinks the war is right, despite someone else's efforts to stop him.
Guy B: Thinks the war is wrong, but joins anyway because of peer pressure.
?
:p
Seriously, if he really thought the war was wrong why on earth did they go into it?!
Interesting though :) |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Who's more stupid?
Guy A: Thinks the war is right, despite someone else's efforts to stop him.
Guy B: Thinks the war is wrong, but joins anyway because of peer pressure.
?
:p
Seriously, if he really thought the war was wrong why on earth did they go into it?!
Interesting though :) |
You'd be amazed at how easily others can be either bullied, bribed or coerced.
http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Here's another interesting tidbit:
| quote: | Countries that refuse US immunity 'face aid cuts'
December 10, 2004 - 9:37AM
Supporters of the International Criminal Court warned today that a law signed into effect by President George W Bush would cut off humanitarian aid to countries that refuse to grant Americans immunity from the world's first war crimes tribunal.
It will cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid to countries that belong to the court, or ICC, but have not signed a so-called bilateral immunity agreement with the United States.
The bill, submitted by House Representative George Nethercutt, passed Congress as part of a $US388 billion ($513.43 billion) legislative package covering spending of every federal agency but the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security. It was approved by Congress and signed by Bush on Wednesday.
"None of the funds made available in this act ... may be used to provide assistance to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court and has not entered into an agreement with the United States," a portion of the text reads.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The New York-based Human Rights Watch, a pro-ICC group, said the bill threatens US aid intended to help US allies promote democracy, fight terrorism and corruption, resolve conflict and drugs.
Jordan, which has helped train Iraqi police and hosted conferences on the reconstruction of Iraq, is set to lose approximately $US250 million ($330.82 million) in aid. Peru is expected to lose $US8 million ($10.59 million) for democratic reforms and agricultural programs, drug-trafficking, and terrorism.
"This is a serious escalation by the Bush administration and US Congress in its ill-conceived, ideologically motivated crusade against the ICC," Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch said in an interview.
He called it ironic that the bill's passage coincided with new reports of torture by US forces of prisoners in Iraq and at the Guantanamo prison complex.
ICC officials declined to comment on the bill, saying it was up to the court's member countries to react.
The International Criminal Court is the end result of a campaign for a permanent war crimes tribunal that began with the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It can prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002, but will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.
The US government vehemently opposes the court, arguing that it could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. But supporters of 1998 Rome Treaty, ratified by 97 countries including the entire European Union, counter that it contains enough safeguards to prevent politically motivated prosecutions.
The court is expected to try its first cases of crimes in Congo and Uganda next year.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Co...l?oneclick=true |
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
^^^ Wow, I had no idea about that. That is ing aweful!!!
Interesting as well... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Of course they did! Much for the same reason France did. (edit: and Canada for that matter).
They were one of several countries implicated in the UN Food-for-Oil scandal. They knew if U.S. went in, they could no longer line their pockets with a free Iraq...
Maybe they joined so as to not look so bad when the paperwork finally caught up with them, who knows? :conf:
They've certainly been backtracking that's for sure... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Of course they did! Much for the same reason France did. (edit: and Canada for that matter).
They were one of several countries implicated in the UN Food-for-Oil scandal. They knew if U.S. went in, they could no longer line their pockets with a free Iraq...
Maybe they joined so as to not look so bad when the paperwork finally caught up with them, who knows? :conf:
They've certainly been backtracking that's for sure... |
Maybe. So now Halliburton and KB&R gets to have first dibs on the spoils of war, right?
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/features/iraq/ |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Want to check your e-mail in Italy? Bring your passport.
An antiterror law makes Internet cafe managers check their clients' IDs and track the websites they visit.
By Sofia Celeste | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
ROME – Looking out over the cobblestone streets of Rome's Borgo Pio neighborhood, Maurizio Savoni says he's closing his Internet cafe because he doesn't want to be a "cop" anymore.
After Italy passed a new antiterrorism package in July, authorities ordered managers offering public communications services, like Mr. Savoni,to make passport photocopies of every customer seeking to use the Internet, phone, or fax.
"This new law creates a heavy atmosphere," says Savoni, his desk cluttered with passport photocopies. He is visibly irritated, as he proceeds to halt clients at the door for their ID.
Passed within weeks of the London bombings this summer, the law is part of the most extensive antiterror package introduced in Italy since 9/11 and the country's subsequent support of the Iraq war.
Though the legislation also includes measures to heighten transportation security, permit DNA collection, and facilitate the detention or deportation of suspects, average Italians are feeling its effect mainly in Internet cafes.
But while Italy has a healthy protest culture, no major opposition to the law has emerged.
Before the law was passed, Savoni's clients were anonymous to him. Now they must be identified by first and last name. He must also document which computer they use, as well as their log-in and log-out times.
Like other owners of Internet cafes, Savoni had to obtain a new public communications business license, and purchase tracking software that costs up to $1,600.
The software saves a list of all sites visited by clients, and Internet cafe operators must periodically turn this list into their local police headquarters.
"After 9/11, Madrid, and London, we all have to do our utmost best to fight terrorism," says a government official who asked not to be named.
Italy claims that its new stance on security led to the arrest of Hussein Osman, also known as Hamdi Issac - one of the men behind the failed bombing of the London underground July 21.
"Hamdi was well known to our security people and had relatives here with whom he communicated, in some form," says the government official in an e-mail interview.
But Silvia Malesa, a young Internet cafe owner in the coastal village of Olbia, Sardinia, remains unconvinced.
"This is a waste of time," says Ms. Malesa in a telephone interview. "Terrorists don't come to Internet cafes."
And now, would-be customers aren't coming either, say Savoni and Malesa. Since the law was enacted, Savoni has seen an estimated 10 percent drop in business.
"So many people who come in here ask 'why?' and then they just leave," Savoni says.
Most tourists who wander in from the streets, he explains, leave their passports at home or are discouraged when asked to sign a security disclaimer.
Savoni says the new law violates his privacy, comparing it to America's antiterrorism law that allows authorities to monitor Internet use without notifying the person in question.
"It is a control system like America's Patriot Act," he says.
Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the Patriot Act because it permits the government to ask libraries for a list of books someone has borrowed or the websites they have visited.
Under Italy's new antiterror legislation, only those who are on a black list for terrorist connections are in danger of having their e-mails read, according to the government official.
Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu has declared Italy will stop at nothing to fight terror.
"I will continue to prioritize action to monitor the length and breadth of the country, without ever underestimating reasonably reliable reports of specific threats," said Mr. Pisanu in a Sept. 29 interview with Finmeccanica Magazine. Pisanu has also called for developing sophisticated technology to combat terror on Italian soil.
"There is no doubt that, to achieve maximum efficiency, we need the support of the best technological applications," Pisanu affirmed.
As a result, Pisanu has formed the Strategic Anti-terrorism Analysis Committee, which aims to examine and take action against all terror threats.
Due to new measures, more than 25 Islamic extremists were arrested on Italian soil in 2005, according to the Interior Ministry. The ministry also reported that they are conducting "rigorous surveillance" of high-risk areas of terrorist activity and over 13,000 strategic locations in Italy. On Aug. 12 and 13 alone, a reported 32,703 checks were carried out on suspicious individuals.
Despite the inconvenience, most Italians seem relatively unfazed by the law.
"If I am not doing anything wrong, fundamentally nothing is going to happen to me," says Mauro Pallotta, a young artist, after checking his e-mail at Savoni's cafe.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1004/p07s01-woeu.html |
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| ^^^That's terrible, I hope it will change once Berlusconi is kicked out of office in a few months... |
|
|
|
|
