Posted on 10/01/2002 4:27:25 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Despite warnings by President Bush that the U.N. "needs to act," sources close to acting U.S. Ambassador Jim Cunningham admit that any U.N. action on Iraq could be "weeks away."
That assessment came after Cunningham and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Great Britain's ambassador to the U.N., briefed the Security Council's 10 non-permanent members Monday at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"Many council members were not happy that details of the [U.S.] proposal were leaked to the press before they received them," confessed one council diplomat, who requested anonymity.
Last Friday, U.S. and British television networks broadcast details of the council's proposed action on Iraq.
As such, many of those members are now expected to scrutinize any proposal the Bush administration may put forward.
It is expected that the White House will "unofficially" circulate a draft proposal in writing today.
"We just do not know when it could come to a vote," confessed the council diplomat. "It could take weeks. We hope it doesn't. We just don't know."
According to U.N. sources, problems abound.
The U.S. and Britain still have not convinced the other permanent Security Council members (France, Russia and China) that a new action authorizing force against Iraq is needed.
The U.S. position was further complicated with reports from Vienna that U.N. chief arms inspector Hans Blix, meeting an Iraqi government delegation, "was satisfied" with his preliminary discussions on the mechanics of resuming inspections.
Previously, Blix had hoped to send his teams into Baghdad by Oct. 15.
That date could now be jeopardy.
Sources close to the U.N. arms chief explained that he would be "reluctant" to send his people into Iraq before the Security Council acts.
Though UNMOVIC (U.N. Monitoring, Observation, Verification and Observation Commission) could begin its operations under existing resolutions by the council, it might be hesitant to do so, confided a U.N. source close to the situation.
Changing the ground rules in such a fundamental fashion once inspections are under way could prove difficult, it was explained.
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, told NewsMax.com that the U.S. was "losing" support for a new resolution.
"They must still worry about a veto, I have no doubt about it. The resolution they [U.S.] will circulate would be vetoed."
The stalling U.S. move in the Security Council comes as the administration is putting increasing pressure on Congress to act on its own war resolution before it adjourns for the midterm elections.
Last weekend, a group of U.S. congressmen led by David Bonior, D-Mich., which was touring Iraq, also suggested that the White House delay any military action until after U.N. arms inspections resume.
Explained one U.S. diplomat: "We need a new [U.N.]resolution [soon]. If we do not get one, there are other ways we can take care of the matter [Saddam Hussein]."
So what? Who cares what the U.N. thinks? I don't. I'm not overly enthusiastic about a war with Iraq (if we have to nuke anyone back to the stone age it really, really should be China), but I don't see why we should care what the U.N. thinks.
Your cynicism is grounded in ignorance. Bush is not afraid of anthrax attacks on U.S. soil. (No one in the administration is especially afraid of anthrax attacks anymore.)
Nukes are a whole 'nother matter. But the nuclear threat is why we need to advance the timetable, and the POTUS knows that. He will not wait forever on the U.N.
Kofi has been FURIOUS since Bush slapped him down during the UN speech.
He has actively worked to get ANY agreement that Bush is not a part of.
Now he has this one, which he will use to ram his own agenda through, inserting inspectors, while smugly acting like Bush didn't know what he was talking about.
Bush backs off, after much rumblings about 'yet another chance for Saddam not to comply."
Inspectors go in, give Iraq their seal of approval.
Of course, then something happens.
And the UN is, for all intents and purposes, destroyed forever and ever.
THIS IS NEXTBush understands this only too well. Why do you think Saddam is still standing there, laughing at the US? Do you think he's afraid of America, the most powerful nation on earth? It sure doesn't look that way, does it? What's his secret? Why do you think the FBI is still putting on an absurd, Keystone Cops-esque charade, still publicly scratching their heads over the "mystery" of the anthrax threats? Hmmm, was it a 9/11 terrorist, or a "disgruntled white loner"? That's a real tough one, isn't it? Not.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX
YOU CAN NOT STOP US
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.