Annan Sandbags Bush; U.N. Boss Aids Iraq Ploy

In an effort to undercut President Bush´s policy on Iraq, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan participated in the drafting of Saddam´s phony offer to allow "unconditional" U.N. inspections. The revelation is contained in New York Times reporter Todd D. Purdum´s September 18 story on how Bush was "left scrambling" and was achieving "mixed success" in getting the Security Council to agree on tough action against the Iraq dictatorship.

Purdum said Iraq's offer was "drafted in part with the participation of Secretary General Kofi Annan…."

This is additional confirmation that Annan has taken sides in the controversy – with Saddam and against the U.S. It is reminiscent of when Annan traveled to Baghdad in 1998 and returned with an agreement to respect Iraq´s ‘territorial integrity´ in the face of growing concern about Iraq´s weapons of mass destruction. Four years later, as the danger grows, Annan once again takes sides against the U.S. He wears his anti-American bias on his sleeve.

In addition to Annan´s double-dealing, Bush has been set up by aides who convinced him that the United Nations deserved to have one more chance in dealing with Iraq. Robert Novak reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell was in the driver´s seat on the Iraq policy with Bush´s speech pleading for U.N. help. Now, there´s been a car accident and Bush´s policy is on the defensive. After a well-received speech, the Iraq offer of inspections has left the U.S. in a box, the anti-Iraq coalition "scattered," and momentum for another U.N. resolution has been blunted. Saddam is said to have outflanked and outsmarted Bush.

Having put more faith and trust in the U.N., Bush now finds himself waiting on Kofi Annan & Company to deal with Iraq´s latest ploy, even though Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld has said he does not believe a new round of United Nations arms inspections could find Iraq's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons or all its nuclear weapons components. Rumsfeld has also said that Iraq has mobile biological weapons laboratories, that its weapons sites are buried deep underground, and that some weapons are manufactured in factories that also make legitimate commercial products.

Vice President Dick Cheney has commented that, "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow ‘back in his box.´"

Rush Limbaugh labeled Annan a "modern-day Neville Chamberlain." But the fact is that Bush endorsed Annan for another term, knowing that the U.N. boss has taken Saddam´s side in the past. This is a trap of the Administration´s own making.

Washington Times columnist Helle Dale, now an official of the Heritage Foundation, mocked Annan´s acceptance of Saddam´s offer. She said Annan responded with the sound of "Hosannas" to Iraq. But, as editorial page editor of the Washington Times, she directed an editorial endorsement of Annan for another term as U.N. chief. At the time, the paper insisted that "the positions of United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan "have generally been supportive of many U.S. interests."

• Annan made a deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein that led to the expulsion of weapons inspectors and Iraq´s re-emergence as an international security threat.

• He made a deal with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, giving him immunity from prosecution in the Pan Am 103 terrorism case.

• Annan supports the comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was voted down by the U.S. Senate.

• He supports the global warming treaty, which would raise U.S. energy prices while benefiting Communist China and the Third World.

• He supports an International Criminal Court, which could arrest and imprison Americans.

• He supports the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, even though it was signed with the USSR, a country that no longer exists, and was violated by both the Soviet Union and Russia.

• He supports the Biological Weapons Convention as well, even though China and Russia have violated it.

• He collaborated with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and Bella Abzug to promote abortion as an "international right."

• He smeared the United States as a greedy nation in a speech at the University of Notre Dame, claiming Americans don´t spend enough on foreign aid.

• He supports all "necessary revenues" for the United Nations, which amount to global taxes.

• Annan lent his support to the international campaign to abolish the death penalty in the United States and other nations.

• He berated the United States for not paying its "dues" to the United Nations, when America had contributed billions of dollars to peacekeeping operations that had not been reimbursed or credited to the United States.

• He promotes "global debt relief," a cover for transfers of more U.S. wealth to deadbeat socialist Third World dictatorships.

• He refused requests to authorize U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda to seize weapons and prevent genocide.

• He proceeded with an independence vote in East Timor that led to a bloodbath, and

• He covered up the fact that U.N. soldiers were spreading AIDS around the world.

Helle Dale´s Washington Times claimed that Annan "has championed some reforms that have helped make the United Nations a more cost effective and transparent" organization. That was false, too. U.N. whistleblower Linda S. Shenwick, a former budget analyst at the U.S. mission to the U.N., says that no significant reforms have been carried out. No one has lost a job at the United Nations because of Annan´s reforms. On the other hand, the U.N. pension fund has grown to $25 billion.

The Washington Times is entitled to be pro-U.N. and pro-Annan, but this stance is inconsistent with being "America´s Newspaper." Ms. Dale should realize the error of her ways and admit Annan´s anti-American record. Annan should go, and the U.S. should leave the U.N.

You say Annan isn't wrong on wanting OUR soldiers tried by and International Court? You gotta be kidding, right? You also stated:

If we want to remain respected and credible, let's show our force when necessary (such as in Irak, but also elsewhere) but with honor.

When did we ever NOT DO IT WITH HONOR? I don't know what planet YOU'VE lived on, but our soldiers are COURT martialed if they commit crimes on American AND foreign soil, and sent to prison (ever hear of Levenworth?). Do you remember the rape in Japan? How about the pilots who recently made a bombing mistake? Do you know what is happening to them?

There are so many countries who HATE the US, that our troops would be USED as tools in their revenge. It is a ridiculous notion to even consider that we should allow our troops to be tried by an International Court. How DUMB!!

I think it was totally expected that Annan would try to sabotage the Bush plan to take down Saddam. Bush said that if the UN did not take down Saddam it would be irrelevant in international affairs. But the implication of that statement is the UN must submit to our will or we will deal with world problems on our own out side the UN. What that says to the UN is they can become our puppet or not be part of any significant world event. Essentially Bush said to the UN "Take your Security council and shove it, We ain't playing here no more"

They do not want to be our puppet. The only way the UN can claim any power is if they are able to stop us from taking down Saddam. It is certain that the entire Bush team has discussed each step the UN and Saddam cold take long before we took step one. Those that say Bush did not anticipate are really saying they did not anticipate. We have plans to counter anything they do except surrender. We would not want to counter a surrender.

Part of the plan was to gain major support of the American people. With that in Bush's hip pocket there is no way the Democrats can turn down his request for authority. The Democrats see granting Bush's request as a way to allow them to make the economy the main issue in the fall election. Fat chance!!!

The Democrats are going.... HA HA Ha we will give Bush his authority to make war on Saddam and that will let us trash him until after the fall elections for not fixing the economy. The Democrats were crowing to the Time reporters in this vein.

Of course Bush does not likely see it that way. Once Bush has authority from the congress he must act quickly in Iraq. First he must act while he has the full support of the American people. He must act before the UN figures out how to make Saddam look like a good guy and convince the American people that attacking Saddam is a bad idea. If the UN could stop us from acting, they would be the big players on the block. Bush can't give them a chance to do that.

To me that says instant air war. Remember this is not a war to get the Iraqi government to do something. There will be NO DO this or we will attack you. This is a war to overthrow the Iraqi government. That means there is nothing the Iraqi government can do to stop the war before it starts except surrender. I think we will start to attack military targets from the air almost immediately. Saddam will have to disburse his troops within the civilian population or we will kill them all from the air.

That means Saddam can't protect his own borders. In a desert with out air superiority he cannot set up defensive positions. We will kill all his troops from the air. In 1991 we wanted Saddam to pullout of Kuwait. We did not want to see how many hundred thousands of his troops we could kill. This time with a grouind war in Iraq on the agenda, dead Iraqi soldiers are required. We won't even have any troops on the ground they can surrender to. They will have to make a run for Kuwait to surrender.

There is some possibility he will use nerve gas and biological weapons. The people he orders to use them know that if they follow his orders and Saddam loses, they will be put to death as war criminals. Many of Saddams soldiers will surrender rather than face war criminal charges.

So I think we will have lots of air war in our near future. And the economy will be on the back burner.

Saddam may try to attack Israel with missiles. Consider this. In 1991 we had lots of Arab fighting with us. We will have very few this time. We may not try to discourage Israli attacks on targets of opportunity. I do think there are many surprises ahead.

I don't know when the ground war will start, but the air war will almost certainly start soon. In days is my estimation. We will want to give the UN an incentive to try to find a way to appease the United States. That will be the UN's only option.

Did I mention Bombs Away???

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.