Deri, et al,

Here's the full NYT editorial from 1999

Rhetoric and Reality on Iraq

Published: December 10, 1999
More than eight years after American-led military forces triumphed in
the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein still rules Iraq and continues to
cheat on the surrender terms that require him to eliminate all
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles capable of
delivering them. His galling defiance and America's frustrations in
dealing with him have again made Iraq an issue in a United States
presidential campaign.

Gov. George W. Bush of Texas talks about contingencies in which he
would use American military power to ''take out'' Iraq's illegal
weapons. On the Democratic side, Vice President Al Gore argues, with
the benefit of hindsight, that Governor Bush's father erred in 1991 by
not marching to Baghdad and toppling the Iraqi dictator in the war's
closing days.

Such martial talk about a reviled foreign despot makes for satisfying
campaign oratory. But as Presidents Bush and Clinton learned,
containing Iraq's weapons and ambitions has never been simply a
military task. It has required long and often tortured diplomacy
involving a coalition of disparate countries that broadly agree on the
need to contain Mr. Hussein but not on every element of strategy.

Perhaps as early as this weekend the United Nations Security Council
will be voting on a new compromise resolution that could bring
international arms inspectors back to Iraq after a costly yearlong
absence. Of the council's 15 members, 11 now support the main elements
of the resolution. Russia is the chief remaining holdout.

The resolution would establish a new inspection commission with powers
to draw up a list of essential disarmament conditions Iraq must
fulfill to win limited relief from sanctions. If Baghdad meets the
conditions, including a resumption of unhampered inspections, the
council would consider a temporary suspension of sanctions. Iraq's
export revenues would pass through an internationally supervised
account, and its imports would be vetted to prevent the purchase of
weapons or weapons ingredients.

France accepts all elements of this formula, but regrettably has not
committed itself to vote for the resolution. Russia, however, seeks to
dilute the list of disarmament conditions and require Iraq only to
admit the inspectors and leave them alone for a few months instead of
achieving specific disarmament benchmarks. That is unacceptable. The
Clinton administration, which made sensible and significant
adjustments in its Iraq policies to broaden U.N. support, should not
agree to dilute the resolution in the ways Russia proposes.

Intrusive arms inspections inside Iraq are the most effective approach
yet discovered for detecting and thwarting illegal Iraqi weapons
programs. Getting U.N. approval for a new inspection program is less
dramatic and stirring than the war cries of the politicians. But it is
far more useful.



On 8/3/07, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Friday 03 August 2007 19:25:05 Kendall D. Corbett wrote:
> > Deri,
> >
> >
> > It may be worse than the Post - He bought the Wall Street Journal,
> > unless I missed the news about him buying the Post, too.
> >
>
> You're right - its the WSJ - the New York Post he's had for a while (plus
> FoxNetwork of course).
>
> Up until 2003 the US had strict rules covering media ownership,
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2955994.stm>
>
> Cheers
>
> Deri
>
> -----------------------
>
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
>
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
>


-- 


Kendall

An unreasonable man (but my wife says that's redundant!)

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.

-George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy