Canada unmoved by new U.S. evidence

Toranto Star ^ | 2/05/03 | JOHN WARD

[kattracks]

No change in position despite 'persuasive' U.S. argument

OTTAWA - Despite a "disturbing and persuasive" argument that Iraq is trying to deceive UN weapons inspectors, Canada will await further word from the inspectors themselves before deciding whether to join the United States in any military response.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said today that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a convincing presentation to the UN Security Council suggesting that "Iraq seems to be trying to fool" UN teams searching Iraq for caches of forbidden weapons.

But, Graham added, Canada will await the decision of the council later this month before deciding on a course of action.

We are not at a point where there is a need to use force," he told a news conference. "However, we don't have much time left."

Graham was reacting to Powell's long-awaited speech at the UN, in which he detailed U.S. allegations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has defied UN demands to rid his country of chemical and biological weapons.

The minister said the matter rests with Hans Blix, the chief arms inspector, who is to return to Iraq this weekend and will report back to the council Feb. 14.

"We need to give that inspection system a last chance, maybe one, maybe two, over a couple of weeks," Graham said. "If Dr. Blix comes back with a report saying that under no circumstances has Saddam Hussein any intention of co-operation with the inspectors at that point ... the other consequences have to flow."

Saddam has to show he's willing to disarm and to co-operate. If he doesn't, "the world has to take action to enforce its resolution," Graham said.

Powell outlined a circumstantial case, including satellite photos, intercepted communications and the word of unidentified informants, which suggested that Iraq maintains stocks of chemical and biological weapons and is hiding them from inspection.

Graham said he was impressed by Powell's willingness to use top secret material, even against the advice of security authorities.

"One thing that was somewhat surprising to me was the fairly extensive use of highly classified security materials, which usually the United States and other governments are very reluctant to provide," Graham said.

While he said Powell didn't provide a smoking gun, he did show a suspicious pattern of conduct by Iraq.

Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper urged the government to side firmly with the United States, which says it will act unilaterally against Iraq if it deems such a move necessary, even without approval from the world body.

"What is the benefit now of giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt?" Harper asked the House of Commons.

Outside the House, Harper said Canada should take a stern stand.

"I think we should declare with our allies that Iraq is in material breach (of UN demands) and in order to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein, that we should be redeploying in the Gulf region."

Alexa McDonough of the NDP told the House that Powell's "so-called evidence" proved nothing. Her party's position is that nothing justifies war against Iraq.

The Canadian Arab Federation said Canada should be trying to restrain the apparent U.S. zeal for war.

"Colin Powell is asking us all to take quite a big leap of faith ... to believe these assertions are proof that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction," said Audrey Jamal, the group's executive director.

She said she wants to see a diplomatic solution.

There were others who were suspicious about Powell's claims.

Shahina Siddiqui, a board member with the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Powell was repeating old claims.

"I don't find it a convincing argument for war," he said.

He brushed off the tapes of alleged intercepted communications between Iraqi officers.

"Those tape recordings, I'm sorry, but these days anything can be manufactured."

Imad Khadduri, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who immigrated to Canada in 1999 and works as a college computer instructor in Toronto was equally skeptical.

"The so-called evidence provided is threadbare," he said. Allegations about nuclear weapons "are flimsy, they are not true and I can disprove all of them with facts, because I lived them."

He said he worked on Iraq's nuclear weapons program from 1968 until after the Gulf War, when the project was destroyed.

Powell is spreading "disinformation," he said.

Khadduri conceded, however, that he had no personal knowledge of chemical or biological weapons stock.

Brian MacDonald of the Atlantic Council, a think tank that tracks UN issues, said the problem is that people are asking the United States to prove its case against Iraq, when the onus should be on Saddam to prove he doesn't have banned weapons.

So far, Canada has said it will await the decision of the Security Council, but Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has not closed the door on joining the United States without further UN approval.

[CanadianBacon]

I'm not against waiting for some weeks to invade Iraq and seeing if Saddam suddenly co-operates with inspections, eliminates his bag of goodies or even better packs up his household and moves to Libya. But what I do want to see is a continuing buildup of pressure on him, more deployments and the conversion of a previous fence sitter (hello Jean Chretien wake up) to a supporter to add international momentum against him.

However, my hopes for Chretien to do the right thing have always been disappointed, not by what he has done but by the fact he never does anything. It is government policy in Canada to delay and defer and hope things go away. Waiting for U.N. approval to support the U.S. is typical of this avoid a decision at all cost policy. We are an independent country and should make our own decisions to go to war or stay home. To allow the likes of Cameroon and the other bozos on the U.N. Security Council to make our national policy decisions on such an important matter is absolutely insane but all too typical.

[ThomasMore]

No need to apologize. We all have a$$holes in our respective countries. Just look at Kennedy, Dasshole, Boxer, Schumer, Conyers, McDermott....and the list goes on. We know there are a lot of good Canadians who are true allies.

Many of them retire to Florida. ;^)

[FreeCanuckistan]

"I can't help but wonder how long it would be if I responded in kind toward the US before I got thrown off"

My bet is that nothing would happen to you. I'd like to add that although I agree with your assessment of some American's "ignorance shown toward Canadians".....I find personally, that their numbers are small and equal to the ignorance of some of our fellow Canadians. I dare say that we neighbour's have no time or reason to bicker.....we are not each other's enemy.

[Archimedes2000]

Snowyman, I have to say, as someone who was born in Canada, and now lives in the US, I am extremely appalled by the rabid anti-Americanism and anti-West sentiment exhibited by a LARGE segment of Canada's population. It's not just coming from the PM's office, it's newspapers, TV stations, etc.

Check out some of the Canadian chat rooms sometime, it's hard to believe.

I feel sorry for you, I really do. But I think Canada is rapidly declining into a nation led and supported by people with fringe ideologies, like Libby Davies. The constant assault on all things American from Canada is troubling, and it's been that way for a long time, growing worse by the day.

[Steve0113]

No one admits to voting liberal here either. But someone did.

No doubt. In the 12 years since Clinton was first elected, I've encountered exactly five people who will admit to having voted for him. But, as you say, someone did.

As far as this twit is concerned, after reading the posts on this thread, I can't help but wonder how long it would be if I responded in kind toward the US before I got thrown off.

Won't happen, but I'd be glad if you didn't.

I'm disgusted by the level of ignorance shown toward the Canadians that do come here.

I can only ask you to ignore them. Neither of our countries has any shortage of idiots. I've seen the same level of scorn directed at Britain, and it's just as foolish.

We would gladly give our support, although , beyond it being the right thing to do , after reading the crap posted here, I 'm really beginning to question why.

See above.

[Steve0113]

I dare say that we neighbour's have no time or reason to bicker.....we are not each other's enemy.

Amen.

[Let's Roll]

I think they try to have it both ways. They can shelter under the American military umbrella while at the same time wrapping themselves in their holier than thou deeds and words. So easy to appear peace-loving and non-judgmental when you can let someone else do the heavy lifting. God knows their hearts - they will not get away with it. if they're even concerned with God

[VOA]

So far, Canada has said it will await the decision of the Security Council, but Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien has not closed the door on joining the United States
without further UN approval.

Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Fortunately for Chretien and fellow liberal-socialist weasels in Canada, The Master
is not directly making the decision about who will join the USA and UK on the winning side...
(all this said with knowledge of the many good folks in Canada)

[Steve0113]

I think they try to have it both ways.

Yes, but the "they" is the socialist government, not the people. Don't ever forget that.

[Mark17]

America has a small glimmer of hope left, but it's looking more and more like patriots will have to battle communists on American soil before long.

I have been expecting that for 30 years.

[Let's Roll]

I'd like to believe that, Steve, but I'm not hearing anything else. There's Mark Steyn and that's it. Are Canadians that passive? If so, then their media and govt do speak for them. I would have thought that Canada at least would understand that we are gearing up to fight back because we are the target. Liberating the Iraqi people sounds good on the nightly news but they've needed liberating for decades. The real reason is our survival - that alone should focus Canada if for no other reason than proximity?

[Clive]

You have obviously not seen the many editorials and columns posted by me and others from Sun Media papers and the National Post and to a lesser extent the Globe and Mail.

I did not stereotype Yanks based on the antics of Clinton Paul Begala or Daschle or on the overwhelming influence of the East Coast, California and DC media on the formation of opinion in the US. Why does it seem necessary that Freepers stereotype all Canadians?

In my city, Toronto, there are 4 major dailies (more than in most US cities) of which two tend to the right, one centris and clearly left.

[Clive]

I should have added that the Toronto Star from which this article was posted is a left wing rag and a Liberal Party house organ.

[Steve0113]

I'd like to believe that, Steve, but I'm not hearing anything else.

See posts 18, 19, 22, 33, 37 and 66. Then tell me you aren't hearing anything else. Mark Steyn isn't the only Canadian who's on our side.

[FreeCanuckistan]

"There's Mark Steyn and thats it"

There's also FreeCanuckistan......consider taking a head count.

[Snowyman]

I again read were we are living under American military protection. NORAD is a two way effort and the citizens of the US lived for years and still do, under the watchful eye of what remains of the the DEW line in Canada. The Bomarc missile program of the 60's would have destroyed the Canadian population had it been used. We were expendable. There was no protection there. But on 9/11, when the US closed it's air space , Canada landed the planes. Each one represented potential missile. Where was the protection then ? We had our real estate on the line . For who?


" Chretien today told the House of Commons that the Government of Canada is waiting for the UN report .

Prime Minister Jean Chretien repeated in the Commons that if the Security Council decides on the use of force, Canada will do its part. But he, too, ignored the question of what Canada would do if the Americans move without UN approval.

A number of MPs, both in committee and in the Commons, were pessimistic about prospects for peace.

"I don't think war can be avoided," said Liberal John Harvard.

"The ball is firmly in Iraq's court," Graham said.

If Saddam Hussein is prepared to co-operate with arms inspections, there is a chance for a peaceful resolution, he said, but that would require a major change in behaviour. "

I have heard the RCR (Royal Canadian Regt.) has been quietly told to start packing. HMCS Regina, departed for the region last weekend and the HMCS Fredericton, is to leave on Feb. 17. to replace the HMCS Montreal and HMCS Winnipeg . We have had ships there since Oct. 2001.

[Let's Roll]

Glad to hear from all of you. You obviously understand how serious this could become for Canada too.

[Kevin Curry]

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed. If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

- Winston Churchill

[FreeCanuckistan]

"Glad to hear from all of you........"

Let's roll!

[Mr. Mojo]

It's good there are conservatives like you up there to keep an eye on the Marxists.