Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT Editorial: The threat posed by Iraq and its arsenal is too serious for diplomacy
The New York Times Archives [NO TEXT LINK] | Feb 18, 1998 | Editorial

Posted on 06/30/2005 5:50:02 AM PDT by nwrep

With the approach of a new moon over Iraq next week, and the darkness it will provide for air operations, the days for diplomacy would appear to be dwindling fast. That is why Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, is preparing for an urgent visit to Baghdad, and it is why President Clinton traveled to the Pentagon yesterday to issue his most explicit warning to Saddam Hussein that the United States will use military force if he refuses to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors.

In these anxious hours, it is important not to lose sight of what must be the common objective of diplomacy and military force, if it comes to that. Mr. Hussein must honor the agreements he made with the Security Council at the end of the Persian Gulf War to desist from the development of weapons of mass destruction and to destroy those he has as well as the means to make them.

The Iraq crisis is neither more nor less than that. Mr. Annan, though eager to avoid renewed military conflict with Iraq, should not settle for anything less than full Iraqi compliance with the resolutions, including unfettered access by the U.N. inspectors.

........snip...........

The threat posed by Iraq and its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons is just too serious to set aside for another diplomatic accomodation. If required, air strikes may not force full Iraqi cooperation and destroy Baghdad's chemical and biological weapons and the capacity to manufacture them. But as Mr. Clinton said yesterday, military action will diminish those dangers and make Mr. Hussein less likely to threaten his neighbors.

To do nothing in the face of Iraq defiance will only embolden Mr. Hussein. The last time he believed the world was indifferent, he invaded Kuwait.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1998; iraq; iraqhistory; memories; nyt; wmdhistory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2005 5:50:03 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Bush Lied!


2 posted on 06/30/2005 5:51:53 AM PDT by neodad (I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Peach; Pukin Dog; roses of sharon; backhoe; kristinn; kcvl; God luvs America; JennysCool; ..

Ping


3 posted on 06/30/2005 5:52:04 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Interesting. Thanks for posting.


4 posted on 06/30/2005 5:52:10 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
The threat posed by Iraq and its arsenal of chemical and biological weapons is just too serious to set aside for another diplomatic accomodation.

BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha! ! ! ! Rub their face in it dittos!

5 posted on 06/30/2005 5:53:12 AM PDT by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Good find. Thanks.

"NYT Editorial: The threat posed by Iraq and its arsenal is too serious for diplomacy"

Only during a Democrat presidency would you see such a headline from the MSM.


6 posted on 06/30/2005 5:54:14 AM PDT by jdm (The answer to the extra credit question on a Columbia U exam is always choice C: "Bush's Fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Can't we get the whole editorial or is that something the NY Times thinks we should have to pay for?


7 posted on 06/30/2005 5:54:20 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Send me your email. I will send you the pdf file. There is no text archive, these are scanned pdf images.


8 posted on 06/30/2005 5:55:56 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

can I ask how you find these???


9 posted on 06/30/2005 5:56:02 AM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

"Can't we get the whole editorial or is that something the NY Times thinks we should have to pay for?"

The latter, unfortunately.


10 posted on 06/30/2005 5:56:16 AM PDT by jdm (The answer to the extra credit question on a Columbia U exam is always choice C: "Bush's Fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neodad

LOL! It just amazes me how the MSM thinks we can not connect the dots.


11 posted on 06/30/2005 5:57:20 AM PDT by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: God luvs America

Here's one way to find them. But it takes time to get back to the 1990s.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=iraq&date_select=full&srchst=nyt


12 posted on 06/30/2005 5:57:39 AM PDT by jdm (The answer to the extra credit question on a Columbia U exam is always choice C: "Bush's Fault.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
To do nothing in the face of Iraq defiance will only embolden Mr. Hussein. The last time he believed the world was indifferent, he invaded Kuwait.

Oh, yeah, things have now changed...a Republican is in office.

13 posted on 06/30/2005 6:01:32 AM PDT by Obadiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Yes, and since they knew Clinton wasn't really going to do anything about it - they knew they could "safely" insist that something be done about Iraq with no worries about the consequences of their insistence.

Hallmark of libs is to always have it both ways.


14 posted on 06/30/2005 6:01:33 AM PDT by Let's Roll ( "Congressmen who ... undermine the military ... should be arrested, exiled or hanged" - A. Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Excellent find.


15 posted on 06/30/2005 6:01:41 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; MJY1288; Mo1

fyi


16 posted on 06/30/2005 6:02:23 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

fyi


17 posted on 06/30/2005 6:02:53 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking; nutmeg; MeekOneGOP

fyi and ping list


18 posted on 06/30/2005 6:03:30 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lizma
What did they call it in 1984? The Memory Hole? The past disappears as soon as it becomes inconvenient.
19 posted on 06/30/2005 6:03:44 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Great find! Thanks for posting.


20 posted on 06/30/2005 6:04:10 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Doug, you can probably take this to Burger King, re type and then fax it from Kinko's to Howard Dean.


21 posted on 06/30/2005 6:04:27 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Who would have ever guessed that the NYT's was once a pro war newspaper :-)


22 posted on 06/30/2005 6:07:32 AM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

UK's Parliament had similiar concerns in 1999 about WMDs and Saddam.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/407/40704.htm#a4

IRAQ


19. In the aftermath of the 1990-91 Gulf War, UN Security Council Resolution 687 obliged Iraq to destroy its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and its ballistic missiles with a range over 150km, and to undertake not to develop these weapons in future. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were charged with ensuring Iraq's compliance. In December 1998, however, Iraq's refusal to co-operate with UNSCOM and the IAEA resulted in the withdrawal of weapons inspectors and the launch by the USA and the UK of Operation Desert Fox.[41]


20. In December 1999, the Security Council adopted a UK-drafted resolution (1284) that "makes clear that Iraq must give up its aspirations to have WMD" and also creates the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace UNSCOM as the body responsible for disarming Iraq of its nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic missile capabilities.[42] If Baghdad fully co-operates with UNMOVIC and the IAEA, Resolution 1284 provides for the suspension of sanctions on Iraq, but controls would remain in place on prohibited items.[43] The resolution did not have the unanimous backing of the fifteen member Security Council: there were eleven votes in favour and four abstentions from France, Russia, China and Malaysia, which had a non-permanent seat on the Council at that time. Reports have suggested that the resolution was weaker than it might have been due to Russian and Chinese opposition to sanctions and France's unwillingness to jeopardise its commercial and diplomatic relations with Iraq. The resolution did not contain an earlier provision which had called for the inclusion of UNSCOM inspectors in the new monitoring organisation. There was concern that without institutional memory to augment the archives that UNMOVIC will inherit, the new Commission will be unnecessarily disadvantaged in terms of fulfilling its disarmament mandate.[44]


21. Dr Hans Blix, whom we visited in New York in March, took up his appointment as the first Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC on 1 March 2000. Under the terms of SCR 1284, he had forty-five days in which to produce an organisational plan for UNMOVIC. This plan was presented to, and unanimously endorsed by, the Security Council on 13 April 2000. The FCO informed us that "a successful first meeting of the new UNMOVIC Commissioners was held on 23-24 May, during which Dr Blix described progress on setting up the organisation ... and said that UNMOVIC will be ready to start work in Iraq by the end of August 2000."[45]


22. Prior to December 1998, UNSCOM and the IAEA succeeded in destroying large quantities of chemical and biological weapons materials and facilities as well as Scud-type missiles. A nuclear weapons programme was also uncovered. However, the Iraqi regime's systematic concealment of proscribed items and obstruction of weapons inspectors means that not everything has been uncovered. It is more than likely, therefore, that Iraq has taken advantage of the absence of inspectors to rebuild its WMD and missile programmes and capabilities.[46] There have been reports claiming that Iraq has conducted tests of the Al Samoud missile since the withdrawal of the inspectors.[47] The FCO advised us that the Al Samoud has a declared design range of less than 150 kilometres which means that it does not contravene SCR 687. However, the absence of inspectors in Iraq means that the international community has not been able to ensure that the tests were compliant with SCR 687.[48]


23. We support the Government in its diplomatic efforts within the UN Security Council to ensure that UNMOVIC and the IAEA are given the maximum opportunity to complete the process of disarmament in Iraq in line with relevant UN resolutions. We wish to see UNMOVIC start its work in Iraq at the earliest opportunity. It is important that UNSCOM's successor, UNMOVIC, commands a mandate of equal strength to that of its predecessor to enable it to conduct further inspections of Iraq's WMD activity effectively. We urge the Government strongly to resist any attempt to dilute the international inspectors' powers of inspection or to compromise with Iraq on the composition of the Commission. We agree with the Government that "for so long as Iraq denies UNMOVIC access there can be no progress towards the suspension and eventual lifting of sanctions."[49]


23 posted on 06/30/2005 6:08:57 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

"Who would have ever guessed that the NYT's was once a pro war newspaper :-)"

Wasn't this written doing the Monical licking and stain problem for the Clintoon during his Desert Fox sham to distract America from defining is and sex?


24 posted on 06/30/2005 6:11:56 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jdm

Yes, great find.

BTW, on the search page if you click the "Advanced" link you can enter a date range to narrow your search window. Then it won't take as long to get back to the 1990s.


25 posted on 06/30/2005 6:17:39 AM PDT by mor40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

I believe so


26 posted on 06/30/2005 6:18:02 AM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Yeah... 'The Memory Hole'.

The Globe has a column today by Joan Venochi calling Iraq... 'Bush's War'. The Dem's call Vietnam 'Nixon's War'... Kerry has Cambodia 'seared' in his memory... but neither the Dem's or the MSM mention Kennedy nor (spit)Johnson.

We've been witnessing some of the best propaganda since Joseph Goebbels.

27 posted on 06/30/2005 6:18:41 AM PDT by johnny7 (How often does a '47 Rodham require servicing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
This is the lost decade!! These bastards act as if the 90's never happened.

All so they can claim Bush lied.

Frightening how the MSM can change history in a matter of 2 years.
28 posted on 06/30/2005 6:28:32 AM PDT by roses of sharon (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Thanks, for all of your posts this past week, chronicling news reports in support of military action in Iraq, under direction of the Clinton Administration.


29 posted on 06/30/2005 6:31:46 AM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Hey, anybody can do it.


30 posted on 06/30/2005 6:39:29 AM PDT by doug from upland (The Hillary documentary is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
And that is one of the reasons why the DemoRats keep losing elections in the House, Senate and Presidency. John Kerry thought he was being so smart by taking 4 sides on every issue. Or was that four different positions on every issue, every day.
31 posted on 06/30/2005 6:45:53 AM PDT by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph

I wish I had the money to take out a full page ad in the times and reprint that editorial..I swear I feel like selling my car or something to get the cash to do it and shove that article in the face of all the NYC libs I have to put up with every day..Damn frauds they are .....


32 posted on 06/30/2005 6:47:55 AM PDT by hineybona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
... Kerry has Cambodia 'seared' in his memory

I will never forget reading that quote in the Congressional Record where he claims that President [Nixon] ordered him into Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 and the memory is seared...(Nixon took office on January 20, 1969.)

Boy, it was down hill from there on.

33 posted on 06/30/2005 6:52:35 AM PDT by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hineybona

I know what you mean. Letter-writing to newspapers and media outlets is also another possibility.


34 posted on 06/30/2005 6:58:00 AM PDT by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

It's a testament to the stupidity of the American voter that he received almost 50 million votes.


35 posted on 06/30/2005 7:00:11 AM PDT by johnny7 (How often does a '47 Rodham require servicing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph

I've been writing emails to everyone lately over the Freedom Museum in NYC and over the Durbin thing as well..Not one senator or newspaper replyed..I'm getting sick of writing..Physical action is needed in some cases..In your face protest may be the only way to get attention..Problem most people like us have jobs and cant do it , unlike the libs who seem to find the time to carry signs during the work week .


36 posted on 06/30/2005 7:05:49 AM PDT by hineybona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph

Here's more fascinating reading from the lost decade.

Lot's of good stuff here from 1998

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/

DoD News Briefing

Saturday, December 19, 1998 - 6:55 p.m. (EST)
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen




Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Secretary Cohen: Good evening.

On Wednesday when U.S. and British forces launched strikes against Iraq, I stated that we were pursuing clear military goals. And as President Clinton has announced, we've achieved those goals. We've degraded Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We've diminished his ability to wage war against his neighbors. Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights, following a plan that was developed and had been developed and refined over the past year. We concentrated on military targets and we worked very hard to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. Our goal was to weaken Iraq's military power, not to hurt Iraq's people.

Since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United States and other countries have enforced the U.N. Security Council resolutions to contain Iraq from attacking its neighbors and from using weapons of mass destruction. That containment policy continues. We will maintain a strong, ready force in the Gulf to respond to any contingency. We will ensure that economic sanctions on Iraq stay in effect until Iraq complies with the Security Council resolutions and mandates. Saddam Hussein chose confrontation over cooperation. There's no pleasure to be had when a brutal dictator chooses to pit his people against the entire international community. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. The United States has led in supporting the oil for food program which ensures that the money from the sale of Iraq's oil goes for food and other humanitarian needs and not for weapons or palaces.

We've taken great care to minimize casualties among innocent civilians in our strikes. I find no joy in watching a people in a land so long and rich in history endure deprivation from sanctions or suffering from attacks. To the extent that there are civilian casualties, only Saddam and his brutally destructive regime are to blame.

We gave our forces a very difficult job to do... to execute. And they performed it with great speed and also with great skill. There were no U.S. or British casualties, but as we all know, our armed forces put themselves in harm's way every single day. And I would like to remember this evening that two days into her current six month deployment, the USS ENTERPRISE sustained casualties when two aircraft collided during their carrier qualifications. That night, Lieutenant Commander Kurt Barich, Lieutenant Commander Meredith Loughran, Lieutenant Brendan Duffy and Lieutenant Charles Woodard gave their lives in defense of their country. And our condolences and sympathies continue to go to their families and their loved ones.

All Americans should be proud of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who executed Operation DESERT FOX.

On Monday, Gen. Anthony Zinni, who planned and prepared and commanded this operation with great skill, is going to be here to brief you on the details of DESERT FOX. He and all of our troops deserve our thanks for a job extremely well done.

Mr. Chairman.

Gen. Shelton: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good evening.

As the President said just a short time ago, Operation DESERT FOX has ended. U.S. and British military forces under Gen. Tony Zinni, the commander of U.S. Central Command, have been highly successful in achieving the objectives of Operation DESERT FOX. The military objectives of this operation as outlined earlier by the President were clearly spelled out and approved by President Clinton. As the President's principal military advisor, I am confident that the carefully planned and superbly executed combat operations of the past four days have degraded Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs, his ability to deliver weapons and his ability to militarily threaten the security of this strategically important Persian Gulf region. Gen. Zinni made the same assessment.

The forces participating in Operation DESERT FOX clearly demonstrated their skill, their professionalism and their dedication. This was truly a team effort. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of our total force, active, reserve and National Guard, together with our great British allies all contributed to the success achieved during the operation. It was one team and one fight.

Throughout the operation, we have talked about the professionalism, the skill and the courage of the United States Air Force, Navy and Marine [Corps], along with our British aircraft pilots and their crews, and this was as it should be. However, they were on the tip of a spear, the tip of the well-oiled machine that it takes to carry out a complex operation of this magnitude, carried out exclusively at night... and make it look easy. For example, Air Force and Air National Guard crews of the U.S. Transportation Command [flying] C-17 Globemasters, C-141 Starlifters and C-5 Galaxies know how critical their contributions are to the overall operation. So do the crews of the aerial refueling aircraft, without whose support these strikes, indeed, even getting the equipment to the fight, would not have been possible. In fact, I think their motto should probably be "try fighting without us". And the list goes on and on.

When it comes to our maritime, the focus has been largely on the aircraft carrier battle group ENTERPRISE, The Big E. This was particularly appropriate on the first night when it was the ENTERPRISE's Navy and Marine Corps aircraft that carried out the strike sorties. But as the sailors know very well, their success would not be possible without the great work of support ships that bring everything from beans to bullets to those ships at sea, as well as to our soldiers and Marines and airmen ashore.

During the course of DESERT FOX, American and British war planes flew more than 650 strike and strike support sorties. Our ships launched more than 325 Tomahawk cruise missiles and U.S. Air Force B-52s launched more than 90 cruise missiles. In all, we attacked almost 100 targets, all related to our overall mission objectives.

Finally, I want to say a few words to the families of all of our servicemen and women and particularly to those loved ones who are serving in the Gulf or getting ready to go out as part of our crisis response force. I know it's been difficult, especially during this holiday season, to watch your husband, wife, son or daughter, mom or dad pick up that ruck sack one more time to answer our nation's call. America is very proud of you all.

Now that Operation DESERT FOX is over, we will carefully evaluate the forces we need to keep in place in the region to keep an eye on Saddam. Make no mistake about it, we will maintain a significant capability there to defend our national interests and the security of the region as we have for many years.

Once again, on behalf of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all Americans, I want to offer congratulations to Gen. Tony Zinni and to each member of the Central Command for a job extremely well done.

Thank you.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you have said that these raids have degraded Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, but apparently, they haven't done much to harm his ability to make such weapons. How would you answer that criticism? And how did you decide ahead of time that 70 hours would accomplish your goals?

A: Let me answer the second part first. This has been the plan from the very beginning. This is essentially the same plan we had in preparation and were prepared to execute last February. It is the same plan we prepared to execute in November. So that has been the plan from the beginning to achieve the goals that we set for ourselves.

With respect to the manufacture of chemical and biological agents, as I've indicated time and time again, our goal was to diminish his capacity to deliver such chemicals or biological or even nuclear weapons and to strike those facilities we could identify that possibly solely produced them. But we were always conscious of the fact that you could have a facility inside of a hospital or a fertilizer plant, a dual use facility, and we took that into account in seeking to balance the need to reduce his capacity to pose a threat to the region and at the same time, not engaging in the wholesale destruction of the Iraqi people.

Q: Do you plan to try to convince the U.N. to send the UNSCOM inspectors back in or is that now a dead issue after the air strikes?

A: It's not at all a dead issue. As a matter or fact, Saddam Hussein will have the burden of demonstrating in some affirmative fashion that he is prepared to allow the inspectors to come back in to be effective. We are not going to simply go through the motions once again where he is able to obstruct their ability to carry out their mission. And so, he must demonstrate a willingness to allow the inspectors to come back and to complete their job. And barring that, we intend to maintain the containment policy which continues to keep the sanctions in place. We'll continue our military as we have been, in place and ready to take action, if it becomes necessary.

Q: If the UNSCOM inspectors are not allowed back in, will there be further air strikes?

A: We are prepared to carry out such air strikes, but we intend to maintain the containment policy and also to make sure that he doesn't threaten the region again. So we'll have our own intelligence observations and make the kind of determination that would lead us to the obvious conclusions.

Q: You use the [word] diminish to describe --

A: Degrade.

Q: "Diminish" to describe the damage done to the conventional capability. What is diminish in your words versus destroy, eliminate?

A: It's less than what he had before and we think significantly less than what was available before in terms of his capacity to move against his neighbors. We've looked at his Republican Elite Guard, so to speak. We have damaged in substantial fashion, their facilities, some of their housing. We have destroyed his missile production capability, at least, in the factory that we targeted. So there is a significant degradation in our judgment of that.

Q: ...like, Republican Guard tanks that survived the Gulf War?

A: He still has armor and that could pose a threat to the region, but that's the reason we have our own forces there.

Q: Do you intend to keep the crisis response force flowing to the Gulf or have you put that on hold?

A: I think we are in consultation with Gen. Zinni about the need to do that right now. And we'll act upon his recommendation. If he thinks it's still necessary to do that, we will continue it. If he believes he has satisfactory forces in place, then we will take that into account and make a decision.

Q: On UNSCOM, if I might, have you decided what you will require from Saddam by way of an earnest [gesture] of his good faith, should he welcome UNSCOM back in?

A: I think that will remain to be determined. I think we'll have to give that some great thought given his past behavior.

Q: How would you characterize, based on the battle damage assessment that you've seen so far... how would you characterize the overall success rate of these fours days of strikes? Did you accomplish absolutely everything you wanted? Did you come close? How would you characterize it?

A: We've tried to indicate on several occasions in the past few days, it's too early to make such a definitive assessment. We are satisfied that the mission has been successfully accomplished. No mission can be 100% perfect. We've understood that. Everyone understands that. We think that under the circumstances, that we were quite successful and we're satisfied with that.

Q: Mr. Secretary, is it a victory for Saddam that the inspectors are now out and they have said they're not coming back? Hasn't he won a victory there?

A: Not at all. To have inspectors on the ground who are in effect, there in appearance only, and have been precluded from carrying out their mandate, means that you give the appearance of compliance while carrying on your weapons of mass destruction program. I think that is not acceptable and frankly, the action we took because he refused to let them do their job... we had to do ours. And I would say this is not -- we did not seek a military option. It was a last resort only. We came to the last resort.

Q: Isn't he better off without them there?

A: I don't think he's better off without them there, given the fact that there has been some significant damage done to his infrastructure. And he is not going to be able to reconstitute easily or quickly because we intend to keep the sanctions in place.

Q: About five hours ago or so, the assessment wasn't nearly done and planes were in the air. How can you possibly have assessed what those planes did?

A: I leave that to Gen. Zinni, who has made that judgment and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Q: Secretary Cohen, regarding the inspectors, in addition to the UNSCOM inspectors, who call themselves in effect, the IA -- International Atomic Energy Agency Inspectors, have also been required to leave Iraq and it's believed by some they also may not be able to return. And those inspectors were widely considered effective. I mean, is that a price you're going to have to pay, now having done what you've done?

A: Saddam will have to make a determination as to whether or not he's prepared to fully cooperate with those inspectors as well. To the extent that they remain outside of Iraq, there will be no chance of closing any files in the future. And so, the sanctions, again, will continue to remain in place. So he does not benefit from keeping them out, and he does not benefit from keeping the UNSCOM team out either.

Q: He benefits in terms of an ease[ing] in developing a nuclear program.

A: Well, we are going to continue to watch him very closely. We have -- we will make every effort to compensate for the lack of those inspectors. But by the same token, he is going to be precluded from getting relief from the sanctions and that is very important to him. He wanted to get the inspectors out and get relief from the sanctions. He may have gotten the inspectors out at least temporarily. He will not get relief from the sanctions.

Q: Do you think it's just a matter of time before the United States will have to conduct another such operation against Iraq?

A: Wouldn't want to speculate on that. We're prepared to conduct future military operations, but that will depend upon Saddam's actions.

Q: Gen. Shelton, were today's strikes the proving -- the point that allows you to say enough, we've accomplished our goals? Were they key today, to your judgment?

Gen. Shelton: We certainly wanted to carry out today's strikes because they were key to the objectives that we set out for the strike. But the majority today were directed against Republican Guard units, which were restrikes of the same units, different types of units within the same. But as you know, if you look at a Republican Guard division, it's spread out over a great distance. It has a lot of stuff. And so these strikes went against them.

Q: Did you go for armor and people and soldiers today?

A: We went after command and control.

Q: How many divisions of the Republican Guard were targeted overall through the whole thing?

A: Four.

Q: Given the fact that it became obvious after the first night that the Republican Guard and the Special Republican Guard were being targeted, how successful can you be? I mean, didn't they essentially run for the hills, even though there aren't a lot of hills there?

A: On a lot of the targets that we went after, that related to command and control, both the Special Republican Guards and the Republican Guards were hit very early in terms of their command and control with Tomahawks.

Q: So you basically are trying to create an office, so when they come back to the office, there's nothing left. There's no telephones, no communication, but you may not have killed many people in those strikes because --

A: There were quite a few the first night that were housing, barracks and headquarters.

Q: ...in the barracks... (inaudible)

A: By design to hit those first.

Q: General, what are you going to do with the Special Forces in Kuwait -- leave them there?

A: We've had a Special Forces element in Kuwait for quite some time and there's no plan right now to bring them out. As you know, they maintain some C-SAR capability for Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. And they have a couple of other missions.

Q: Why the emphasis on the Ba'ath party headquarters, which you struck repeatedly? Is there a subbasement there? I mean, is there something other than the political message it sends?

A: As well as... are being tied into the management for the apparatus for controlling the weapons of mass destruction program, which they are tied into.

Q: Were you, in a sense, sending a direct message because that was a site where U.N. inspectors had been denied access. Is that the reason that building was put on the target list?

A: That was already on the target, even before they denied the access, as part of an overall plan of things that if, in fact, they did not... you know, we've been looking at this plan back before -- on November the 15th when the President decided not to go. And then recently when they did not allow access, we made the decision to leave [it] on the target list.

Q: Is there any reason to believe that Saddam Hussein's hold on power is less secure today than it was four days ago?

A: There has been - as you asked today I believe -- early today about a potential uprising. I don't know how serious that is. We certainly struck at a lot of his security apparatus, things that are key to controlling his weapons of mass destruction. But they also are key to his own protection and security. It's kind of a dual mission that they have. And so, how effective that is we'll find out over the long term, I think.

Q: Do you know more about these activities in the South than you did before? You said earlier, that...

A: No.

Q: But you do have indications that there's some chaos or activity down there --

A: We've always known that, in that particular region, that that's been where a lot of the concern was. And we know that he moved some units in that area, which appear to be, as a result... are trying to make sure you didn't have an uprising. But to what extent, we're not sure right now.

Q: Getting some reports that there are some roads which have been closed down, some communications have been shut down and it may be relatively well organized. Do you have reason to believe that?

A: I have not gotten that indication right now.

Q: Did you have -- were there any missions - were there any sorties to try and attack or target buildings where you thought Saddam Hussein might be? Do you have any missions targeting...

A: We went after command and control and security type, command and control security related to WMD -- all related to WMD. But some also related to how Saddam maneuvers his forces and things of this type. So they're kind of dual use facilities, his own command and control of forces as well as the apparatus that oversees the WMD program.

Q: Did you try to --

A: No. We don't know where Saddam is and there was no intent to go specifically for him.

Q: How many of his so-called palaces were hit? Or did you hit any?

A: About eight. Seven or eight.

Press: Thank you.




Printer


37 posted on 06/30/2005 7:06:07 AM PDT by Wristpin ( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Thanks for the find!


38 posted on 06/30/2005 7:11:53 AM PDT by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Of course there is this which Democrats will jump on:

"The Iraq crisis is neither more nor less than that. It is not about removing Mr. Hussein from power, as much as Republican Congressional leaders would like to see that outcome of this latest confrontation. Handing millions of dollars to the Central Intelligence Agency to unseat Mr. Hussein, doubtless a popular notion in Congress, has not worked before and is not likely to work now because the Iraqi opposition is splintered and weak."

The NY Times loves to keep despots in power and removing them is just a "popular notion" of those crazy Republicans. Show this to any liberal and they will focus on the fact that the NY Times said that Hussein should not be removed. and they'll ignore the rest of the editorial.

39 posted on 06/30/2005 8:00:33 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
Show this to any liberal and they will focus on the fact that the NY Times said that Hussein should not be removed. and they'll ignore the rest of the editorial.

Actually, the implication is that the CIA should not be used, the military is a better option. That is what the editorial is proposing.

40 posted on 06/30/2005 8:02:42 AM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

Seem the opinions of the Old Grey Lady depend solely on which political party occupies the White House.


41 posted on 06/30/2005 8:04:46 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nwrep
Actually, the implication is that the CIA should not be used, the military is a better option. That is what the editorial is proposing.

I agree with you completely but as Rush would say..."I know these liberals like the back of my formerly nicotine stained hands."

42 posted on 06/30/2005 8:05:14 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nwrep

'The paper of record' needs to be changed to 'The paper of hypocrites and liars'.


43 posted on 06/30/2005 8:05:38 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; nwrep; CHARLITE; Marine_Uncle; MizSterious; roses of sharon; Peach; backhoe; Howlin; ..
VERY GOOD ....thanks for the ping...

More from the Archives....hehehe...in this case the New York Times...

44 posted on 06/30/2005 9:09:19 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jdm

That editorial is likely in the FreeRepublic archives, someone may have it on one of their lists.....just pinged a bunch of people for this little gem..


45 posted on 06/30/2005 9:10:52 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The left wing maggots keep forgetting about how easy it is for us to do searches on the internet.


46 posted on 06/30/2005 9:11:14 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; roses of sharon; Peach; backhoe
The archive feeding frenzy is in full swing...and we hava a lot of new folks that have never seen it work before here on the FreeRepublic Memory forum.,
47 posted on 06/30/2005 9:20:05 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I know I spammed the threads yesterday with my posts about the connections between Iraq and AQ, but it was amazing how many people had not seen those connections before.

And so, for those who haven't seen it, this is a very long list of connections between Iraq and AQ and OBL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts


48 posted on 06/30/2005 9:25:48 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon; Grampa Dave
Frightening how the MSM can change history in a matter of 2 years.

But it is getting more difficult for them to attempt to do it!

We probably need to improve our technology though...

49 posted on 06/30/2005 9:27:00 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Peach; Grampa Dave; jdm; nwrep

Excellent!


50 posted on 06/30/2005 9:28:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson