Posted on 11/28/2001 4:53:04 AM PST by JohnHuang2
(CBS) Iraq rejected Tuesday a call by President Bush to let U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country to determine whether Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction.
"Anyone who thinks Iraq can accept an arrogant and unilateral will of this party or that, is mistaken," an Iraqi government spokesman said.
"Iraq is able to defend itself and rights and will not bow to threats but only to justice, and right," the spokesman said in a statement carried by the official Iraqi News Agency.
Meanwhile, U.S. and British warplanes bombed a military target in southern Iraq Tuesday in response to threats to coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone in the area, the U.S. military said.
The attack took place around 11:15 a.m. local time (3:15 EST) on a command and control site in the province of Nasiriyah, Chief Petty Officer David Nagle of the Riyadh-based Joint Task Force Southwest Asia told The Associated Press. Nasiriyah is 218 miles southeast of Baghdad.
All coalition aircraft returned safely to base, Nagle told the AP.
There was no word from Iraq on the attack.
Mr. Bush Monday demanded Iraq allow international arms inspections to resume, saying Washington's war on terrorism also targeted those who made weapons of mass destruction "to terrorize the world."
Bush urged Saddam to allow weapons inspectors into the country "to prove to the world he's not developing weapons of mass destruction."
Asked what will happen if Saddam refuses, the president replied, "He'll find out."
The Iraqi spokesman said before asking Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return, the U.N. should lift the 11-year-old sanctions on Iraq and the West should abolish the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.
Iraq's U.N. ambassador, Mohammed al-Douri, also said the Iraqi government will not allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return as long as the Security Council maintains sanctions imposed after Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
"Our position is very clear on that question — that we will not permit any...weapons inspectors," he said. "We have nothing to inspect."
But sanctions will not be lifted until the U.N. monitors verify to the U.N. Security Council that Iraq is free from prohibited weapons.
Washington says Baghdad has strengthened its weapons arsenal since barring the inspectors.
U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 when the United States and Britain launched four-day extensive air and missile bombings against Iraq for failing to cooperate with them.
U.S. and British planes have been patrolling skies over northern and southern Iraq since the end of the 1991 Gulf War that liberated Kuwait from a seven-month Iraqi occupation. The patrols were set up to protect Kurds and Shiite Muslims from the forces of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Iraq says the zones violate international law and has been challenging allied planes patrolling them since December 1998.
©MMI CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Reuters Limited and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
When it comes to the question of what should be the next stop in the War on Terrorism -- ergo, to bomb or not to bomb Iraq -- determining where the fear factor is greater, in Baghdad or in beltway newsrooms, is a nigh impossible task.
Nor, come to think of it, which of the two sweat harder these days, especially in the face of Enduring Freedom's roaring success in Afghanistan.
Granted, their motives for opposing extending the war to Iraq naturally differ: To wit, Baghdad wishes to continue building its weapons of mass destruction 'unmolested'; while the media, 'molested' by all of those things it instinctively despises -- national unity, patriotism, flags, stratospheric presidential approval ratings, you name it -- wants this war over -- OVER! -- already, darn it. The quicker, the better.
'Ah, c'mon!', some might object: Couldn't it be out of genuine concern for the safety of our troops that the press sincerely wishes a quick end to hostilities, no?
Give me a break.
To those inclined to believe that, please answer the following hypothetical: What do you suppose the liberal "news" media consensus would be if, say, Clinton were still in the White House and Slobodan Milosevic were busy building weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone honestly doubt what the working consensus would be? Why, the press would be beating the drums of war louder even than x42 himself!
This is the same "news" media, let us not forget, which has repeatedly shown not the slightest hesitation to publish the most sensitive operational military details. To residents of Palm Beach County, this means ad revenue and ratings are far more important in medialand than our troops or their mission.
Let's face it: The press opposes taking this war to Saddam for ulterior, ideological reasons -- reasons having nothing even vaguely to do with any desire for "peace" or "concern" for our troops.
The extraordinary triumph of Operation Enduring Freedom has shattered all of their expectations. The pundits were unequivocal that Afghanistan would turn into a veritable quagmire, Bush's political Waterloo. Yesterday's cocksure confidence today has the smell of fear -- fear that momentum from Afghanistan will spill over into Iraq.
Put yourself in the shoes of the average, beltway crackpot pencil-pusher, er, "reporter": You voted for Gore last Fall; even the notion of a second Bush term absolutely terrifies you; polls showing solid support for the President, notwithstanding you and your colleagues best efforts, make you feel hopeless, silly, irrelevant.
"How could this smirking chimp's polls be so darn high so darn long!?", you wonder in utter frustration.
Neither can you stomach the images out of Kabul: Jubilant Afghans dancing in the streets; crowds of men lining up to chop off their scraggly beards; beautiful women shedding Burkas and revealing their dazzling looks, hidden till now beneath that hated symbol of life for women under the Taliban.
None of these jovial images jibe with what you were told to expect by your bosses -- the Editors -- from "Dumbya's war" in Afghanistan.
You've got to hand it to Rush -- he's absolutely right about another thing: Liberals viscerally despise anything which smacks of military success. And, in Afghanistan, you've got evidence of it galore. The outcome so far rends asunder every cherished liberal axiom and every tenet of pacifist dogma about the futility of war. People there are happy now, they've been liberated! They're starting to eat again, families -- at long last -- are reuniting, music fills the air, the future is brighter now.
None of it would have been conceivable without decisive military action.
Just as crushing the Taliban shattered expectations among Islamic fundamentalists that Allah would save the regime from ignominious defeat, similarly, American military victory in Afghanistan has thrown the liberal intelligencia into a crisis of confidence. Their "inviolable" canons of beliefs and "principles" are now under fire, pardon the pun.
From whence comes the media's clamorous opposition to taking the war to Baghdad: To wit, fear of another victory.
After all, the media might survive one decisive defeat, but two -- back-to-back?
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
"The Inspectors have won the toss and elected to Kick-Off" item.
a foretaste of the feast to come...
So, the only question is how it will unfold.
It's quite humorous to see liberals and nations that are run by such nuts, complain, moan, bemoan, predict dire consequences, etc., concerning any military action.
Expect the same baloney from the left on Iraq as was heard from those same nuts on Afghanistan.
I think the greatest pleasure of having this terrific President, is that he says he's going to do something, he plans it, takes his time, checks as many angles on accomplishing it as they can pursue, and then they act with decision and resolve. In the interim, the leftwing goes berserk with impatient remarks and wimperings of failure- all their usual crap, but GW basically ignores them- keeps on message, keeps reminding everyone that this is a long war and that we have no choice but to fight it- better now than later, better now than when the terrorists get nuclear weapons.
In the end, this is the triumph of common sense reality over the pie-in-the-sky nonsense of liberals.
Actually, truth be known- Liberals don't ever solve problems, they're just good at complaining about reality and then attempting to convince everyone else to believe reality can be dealt with via stupidity.
The hallmark of a true liberal is their ability to ignore reality. You can spot 'em everytime. The Ostrich replaced the Donkey a long time ago.
in addition to despising a successful war (not only won by a route, but how many us casualties have there been so far???), they do not like war because it gets in their way. the media would much rather be spoon fed information and then pontificate on what is really happening and offer copious opinions, in the hope of influencing public opinion. they cannot do this when a war is going on.
in short, the war is keeping the liberal media from advancing its liberal agenda with the american consumers.
Bears repeating....
There you have it; the right of Last Statement.
Well, let's roll...
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.