Skip to comments.NYT Editorial: The threat posed by Iraq and its arsenal is too serious for diplomacy
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.
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.
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha! ! ! ! Rub their face in it dittos!
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.
Can't we get the whole editorial or is that something the NY Times thinks we should have to pay for?
Send me your email. I will send you the pdf file. There is no text archive, these are scanned pdf images.
can I ask how you find these???
"Can't we get the whole editorial or is that something the NY Times thinks we should have to pay for?"
The latter, unfortunately.
LOL! It just amazes me how the MSM thinks we can not connect the dots.
Here's one way to find them. But it takes time to get back to the 1990s.
Oh, yeah, things have now changed...a Republican is in office.
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.
fyi and ping list
Great find! Thanks for posting.
Doug, you can probably take this to Burger King, re type and then fax it from Kinko's to Howard Dean.
Who would have ever guessed that the NYT's was once a pro war newspaper :-)
UK's Parliament had similiar concerns in 1999 about WMDs and Saddam.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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."
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. There have been reports claiming that Iraq has conducted tests of the Al Samoud missile since the withdrawal of the inspectors. 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.
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."
"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?
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.
I believe so
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.
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.
Hey, anybody can do it.
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 .....
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.
I know what you mean. Letter-writing to newspapers and media outlets is also another possibility.
It's a testament to the stupidity of the American voter that he received almost 50 million votes.
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 .
Here's more fascinating reading from the lost decade.
Lot's of good stuff here from 1998
DoD News Briefing
Saturday, December 19, 1998 - 6:55 p.m. (EST)
Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Thanks for the find!
"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.
Actually, the implication is that the CIA should not be used, the military is a better option. That is what the editorial is proposing.
Seem the opinions of the Old Grey Lady depend solely on which political party occupies the White House.
I agree with you completely but as Rush would say..."I know these liberals like the back of my formerly nicotine stained hands."
'The paper of record' needs to be changed to 'The paper of hypocrites and liars'.
More from the Archives....hehehe...in this case the New York Times...
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..
The left wing maggots keep forgetting about how easy it is for us to do searches on the internet.
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:
But it is getting more difficult for them to attempt to do it!
We probably need to improve our technology though...
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.