US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
U.N. Inspections (english)
12 Mar 2003
Modified: 13 Mar 2003
" a 1994 Oval Office address, Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein has shown the world before, with his acts of aggression and his weapons of mass destruction, that he cannot be trusted..."
" a 1994 Oval Office address, Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein has shown the world before, with his acts of aggression and his weapons of mass destruction, that he cannot be trusted..."
"We ought to give that inspection thing one more shot."

Former President Bill Clinton, on "Larry King Live," recently offered this advice to President George W. Bush. "If he has chemical and biological agents, and I believe he does," said Clinton, who opposes an immediate strike against Iraq, "he would have no incentive not to use them then, if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed. He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does."

"One more shot" at inspection? Four years ago, former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter quit because he felt that the Clinton administration prevented him from doing his job. Upon his resignation, he accused the United Nations Special Commission of toothless enforcement "Hobbled as it is by unfettered Iraqi obstruction and non-existent Security Council enforcement of its own resolutions," said Ritter, "the fact of the matter is that since April 1991, under the direct orders and direction of the president of Iraq, the government of Iraq has lied to the Special Commission about the totality of its holdings."

Determined to force inspections, Ritter felt double-crossed by the Clinton administration and, shortly after resigning, said, "We have been directly told, 'Do not do these inspections.' And since April [1998] we have not been allowed to do these tasks, largely because of pressure placed upon the Special Commission by administration officials." Ritter even urged using military force to make Saddam comply.

"One more shot" at inspection? About the futility of resuming United Nations weapons inspections, Ken Adelman, former assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and former U.N. ambassador and arms-control director under President Ronald Reagan, recently wrote, "We can't solve this problem by reinstating U.N. inspections, as British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw advocated Thursday [Aug. 22] on BBC radio. Contrary to international law and clear U.N. resolutions, Saddam has barred inspectors for four years running. Even if he were to acquiesce, they would do little good. His chief nuclear engineer, Khidhir Hamza, identified more than 400 sites in Saddam's nuclear-weapons program not counting those making chemical and biological agents."

Clinton's current assessment of Saddam Hussein as sane and rational stands in contrast with the former president's earlier statements. In 1993, after Saddam's assassination attempt on the first President Bush, Clinton said, "This attempt at revenge by a tyrant against the leader of the world coalition that defeated him in war is particularly loathsome and cowardly." And in a 1994 Oval Office address, Clinton said, "Saddam Hussein has shown the world before, with his acts of aggression and his weapons of mass destruction, that he cannot be trusted."

Clinton now encourages Bush to seek congressional approval, as well as support from our allies, before any military strike. Four years ago, President Clinton's State Department spokesman James P. Rubin disputed the notion that Clinton needed congressional approval before attacking Iraq. "The president has the inherent authority to use force under the Constitution," said Rubin, "and the Congress has authorized the president to use force against Iraq under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution." During a press conference on Sept. 3, 1996, a reporter asked, "Mr. President, why do you think that only Britain is supporting our move? Or why have the allies all retreated from any support?" Clinton responded, "Well, I believe that first of all, you have to ask them their position but I believe that we have historically, at least in recent history, taken the lead in matters like this. And I think this was our responsibility at this time."

It is decision time for President Bush. Does Bush assume Saddam rational, despite his attack on Iran, invasion of Kuwait, possible complicity in the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the use of chemical weapons against his own people, his authorization of an assassination attempt on the first President Bush, his shooting at American and British planes in the northern and southern no-fly zones and his refusal to allow United Nations inspectors for nearly four years? Does Bush wait for another Sept. 11, except with results even more catastrophic? Does he yield to the give-peace-a-chance crowd that instinctively distrusts American CEOs as dishonest and devoid of integrity, while simultaneously believing in the ultimate redemption of a murderous tyrant like Saddam Hussein?

This is where Bush earns his pay. As commander in chief, the president's primary responsibility is the protection of this nation. Imagine the Monday morning quarterbacking should, God forbid, the country experience yet another attack, an attack possibly thwarted if only Bush had acted. Under such circumstances, how long before some Cynthia-McKinney-type, D-Ga., accuses the president of possessing yet failing to act upon prior knowledge of terrorist acts?

No, the path seems clear, the president must act and soon.

Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


I don't agree (english)
13 Mar 2003

I believe in light of the international up roar taking
place.. we should withdraw our troops from ever country
around the world they are staioned in. Korea, Germany,
where ever doesn't matter. Seeing we paif with our tax dollar for military air stips and bases.. we should
destroy these before we leave. Once the troops are
home.. set up a formidable defense around our borders.
Shut off all foreign aid and use the money to restructure
our own society. End immigration, despite requests for
"political assylum" seeing there are no bad guys in the
world but the USA, then no political assylum should be
needed. Give all an opportunity to pledge allegance
to our flag, and each individual the opportunity to sware to
protect and defend our constitution. Those who don't
care to, need to leave.

Remove the IRS as we will have such a national surplus taxes
will not be necessary for income. Insure all Americans
are Housed and Fed and have work available. Though I
don't think we would get to this point or any real
utopian state, the removal of our troops, destruction
of our tax base built bases, and a shut down of the billions
we give to feed and house the world while our own Vets
who fought for our freedoms live and die in the streets..
will be a genuine wake up call to many that the Bad Guys
and Gals of the USA were not really bad guys at all...

Do you know what would happen to world stbility ( other than our own ) if we did this? It would be interesting to
see where the war drums would beat first in those nations
that despise us. Can't you see sodam heading for Kuwait
once again.. then Iran, or Israel.. genocide would once
again have it's finest hour.. Iran might attack Irac
if they headed for Kuwait... then take kuwait... what
about Turkey? They'd try and wipe out the Kurds..
damn... be a lot of thunder over there..

NOT TO WORRY.. there are millions ( they claim here )
willing to march agaist this.. we will do that for your
salvations.. we will send those who want to help end
the madness via protest and civil disobedience to your
country(s) - you can even keep the cruise liners we send them on. They have no work to do here any more-- we
don't get involved with any one.. unless you dare tread on
our homeland.