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.
Bush Lied!
Ping
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.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=iraq&date_select=full&srchst=nyt
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.
Excellent find.
fyi
fyi
fyi and ping list
Great find! Thanks for posting.
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.