Posted on 03/08/2003 8:58:48 PM PST by luv2ndamend
We can play the veto game to. So can our true allies, the Brits. So much for the Security Council.
Here's your advance notice. We will veto
Wednesday night (AP Dec. 17) Iraq, Russia and China called to an immediate halt to the attacks. Iraq's UN envoy, Nizar Hamdoon, said that the uproar over weapons of mass destruction was "nothing more than a big lie" like the claim that Iraq was a threat to its neighbors. He said that Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, had cited only five incidents in 300 inspection operations. In an almost unanimous resolution (Reuters Dec. 17), the lower house of the Russian Parliament, said that the U.S. and Britain were engaged in "international terrorism." Yeltsin said the strikes "crudely violated" the UN charter and should be halted immediately. Russia is furious (Reuters Dec. 18) that the U.S. bypassed the UN Security Council which gave it no chance to use its veto.
While the Washington Times said (Reuters Dec. 17) that Clinton's attack followed the pattern of the "Wag the Dog scenario," the New York Times said the action "was fully justified." Support for the President and U.S. troops also came from the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, the Miami Herald and the Chicago Tribune.
James A. Baker III (CFR) of the Baker Institute said (NBC News Dec. 16) there was a need for speed and that Clinton probably was forced to act: "We've diddled around . . . we probably had to act, this is the right thing, I think, for the United States to do . . . Nobody could be so craven as to risk the lives of our military men and women to cover their political backsides . . . "
Samuel R. Berger (CFR), U.S. National Security Adviser, explained (CNN Dec. 16) that the UN Secretary-General had agreed upon five criteria. Iraq has not cooperated. The inspection commission was not able to function. Richard Butler, on Tuesday, reported that due to Iraq's deception, the inspections were ineffectual. There was no choice but to take military action. The object was to take out missiles, weapons of mass destruction and prevent aggression towards neighbors. With the inspections no longer being possible, the U.S. had to make good on its threats of military force. (Clinton admin. KNEW Saddam had WMDs when inspections stopped. Think about that.)
Former President Jimmy Carter (CFR/TC) stated (Reuters Dec. 17): "American leaders played no role in the timing of Iraq's violations, which cannot be related to political events in Washington."
Laurence S. Eagleburger (CFR/TC), however, apparently broke rank, and said (NBC News Dec. 16) that "it smells."
Richard ("Dick") Andrew Gephardt (CFR) opposed holding a debate on impeachment (ABC Dec. 17) in part based on what Saddam Hussein would think.
Paul Gigot (BB) said there could be no debate while Americans are in harm's way (PBS Dec. 16) while Mark Shields said that Saddam Hussein had ran out his string.
Lott said he had been briefed by the administration (NBC De. 17) and stated: "I am going to take their word for it."
Rep. Porter Goss (R-Florida) , House Intelligence Committee Chairman, said (CNN Dec. 16) that he had not been briefed: "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice and dismantling his regime is what this is about."
Joseph Lieberman (CFR) (D-Conn.) supported (PBS Dec. 16) Clinton's actions "absolutely." It was made clear to Senators three weeks ago that if Richard Butler was frustrated, the U.S. would strike Iraq without delay or warning.
John Forbes Kerry (S&B 1966) said that Clinton was doing the right thing (K-Eye News Dec. 16).
Senator John Warner (PBS Dec. 16) said it was imperative to join together "to enforce the rule of law." He said England was "bravely participating" and that there was clear and convincing proof in the Butler report to the UN. Timing was an issue but now we must back our troops.
Mohammed Said Al-Sahaf, Iraq Foreign Minister, said (News Hour Dec. 17) that rather than "Operation Desert Fox," the operation should be called "Villians in the Arabian Desert."
It's refreshing when Bush calls for a new vote in the UN, he doesn't fear losing in terms of votes, he simply wants history to record where everyone stands in the light of the unamimously approved UN Res. 1441.
I pray for Bush and pray also his successer in 2008 will be of his caliber.
The fangs and claws are now being bared against the righteous in a way I've never seen before, from so many quarters.
1. It isn't unilateral. UK, Spain, Japan, UAE, Kuwait, and 25 others aer all on board.
2. This is the same Security Council that won't do anything to Saddam that he can't easily ignore... how is this a threat?
Amen, Fitzcarraldo. I think we need to hold the mainstream press accountable for the Big Lies....we haven't been acting unilaterally since 9-11-01. This lie intentionally undermines the President - making him appear isolated, weak, an easy target - or as a lone "cowboy" with an itchy trigger finger. Convenient for his enemies...and utterly untrue. Saddam and Kim are strengthened by this destructive partisan "game" that our two biggest international news providers can't seem to stop playing. 'Joe the village liars' - as Rummy would call them - have a direct line to AP and BBC to slander our honorable President daily in their newswires.
Getting posted to the UN is the chance of a lifetime for these corrupt beggars. Whores, nightlife, drugs and other fun in NYC. Their votes are bought easily by the Muslim bloc. By my estimate 80% of nations with UN representation are impoverished rat holes. The tempation is tremendous for even the honest.
You better pray for 2004. AlGore just missed getting elected. We narrowly dodged being turned into a French style pu**y nation.
The Left is clearly going mad. Don't you tremble at the potential an antiwar "Pink Movement" could have to gather the masses throughout the world into one might righteous army for peace? Can't you see working class people in every nation rising to follow the Pink Banner?
This is the thing about George W. Bush that seems a little bit uncanny to me. All his enemies self-destruct.
To go no further back, there was Gore turning himself into RoboReagan at the first debate.
There was the Democrats' decision to go into the 2002 elections with no foreign policy position.
There was the Congressional Democrats' decision to make it their major legislative push of 2003 to keep a highly regarded Hispanic lawyer off the Federal Bench. Not to mention the Awful Fact of Nancy Pelosi.
Now Hans Blix has tried to hide evidence in the clumsiest possible manner, that any middle school student anywhere would know wouldn't work.
And the "Peace Movement" is wearing pink wigs.
A new classic!!
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.