Posted on 09/20/2002 3:08:14 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
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."
The facts, however, show otherwise.
In a rebuttal, I pointed out that:
• 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.
• Annan opposes a national missile defense system for the United States.
• 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.
What about them ... they are being charged under US law for criminal acts and courtmartialed.
If we want to do what IS RIGHT we dont put US citizens under a "court" that is unaccountable to the people and outside the bounds of our soveregnty.
Otherwise, we would turn into an imperialist country of the worst kind. Euro-socialist balderdash ... you make a false choice between own-world-govt and 'imperialism'. choice #3: a free nation can deal with lawbreakers justly with its own courts of law.
International law is a nice buzzword but a myth ... simple Q: how do you select those judges, eh??? how do you appeal??? and how is this different from one-world-govt???
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.