[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM] " . . . 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 (UNSCOM) 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 September 11th, 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. ------------------ Clinton gives tentative approval to deal with Iraq February 23, 1998 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A wary President Clinton gave tentative approval Monday to a deal negotiated by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that would allow unrestricted weapons inspections to resume in Iraq and defuse the threat of war. "Iraq has made a written commitment to immediate, unconditional inspection of all sites in Iraq," Clinton said at a news conference in the Oval Office of the White House. "If the agreement is fully implemented -- and that's a big 'if' -- this will allow UNSCOM (the U.N. Special Commission) to complete its mission," he said. But Clinton said that until the United States and other members of the U.N. Security Council have had an opportunity to review the written agreement, he would not give the deal his approval and military forces would remain in the region. "There are issues that need to be clarified and need to be spelled out," Clinton said. "And in fairness, even (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein is entitled to that." Then, he said, "we must verify that that commitment in writing is verified in fact." Clinton said Iraq must allow its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to be destroyed. He said it must also allow the missiles that deliver them to be destroyed and it must permit UNSCOM to set up a monitoring system to ensure that Iraq doesn't attempt to build such weapons again. "It's not what Iraq says," Clinton said, "it's what it does. In the days and weeks ahead, we must test and verify." In the meantime, he said, the military force in the Gulf that has grown in size over the past several weeks will remain until it is clear that Iraq is honoring its commitments. "We have seen that diplomacy must be backed by strength and resolve," he said. Clinton pointed out that "we have had two crises in the past four months. Failure to let UNSCOM do its job would be a serious, serious matter." He said that if Iraq does not honor the agreement, "I believe everyone would understand that then the United States, and hopefully all of our allies would have the unilateral right to respond at a time, place and manner of our own choosing." Despite his willingness to use force, however, Clinton said, "We also should have the self-confidence to show forbearance as well as strength ... to do what is right. "The objective is unassailable," he said, "and (Saddam Hussein) has agreed to that." Clinton said, "All Americans should have a positive reaction to the fact that we have a commitment to open all these sites."
ranger they just found missiles that exceed the allowed distance. its all over the place. they havent found them now because they are hiding them. they were found in the past before the inspectors were kicked out the first time. every important person in the world except nelson mandela excepts that iraq has everything. french and german intelligence say the same thing. i believe you will be eating crow by the time this war is over. do you think maybe saddam has enough money to buy a nuke from n.korea? korea has offered saddam exile. why do you think that is? because he has the money to build more nukes for korea, ot hold the world hostage. what do you think korea and saddam can accomplish together. have no doubt nuclear war is coming. it may be 10 or 20 years. but it will happen somewhere.
