Now everyone has berated Bush for claiming that the US had the unilateral right to respond with military force.. That he couldn't make such a decision without the "permission" of the UN..
But why didn't the UN have the same reaction with the previous administration when Clinton said the VERY SAME THING???!!:
SEN. COATS: -- to pursue evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The president in his April 6th message says: I believe if Iraq does not keep his word, we would have a unilateral right to respond. He also said, "The United States remains resolved and ready to secure by whatever means necessary Iraq's full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction." I think on the basis of that, any reasonable person would conclude that you had the authority to go ahead and demand complete immediate right of inspection?
MR. RITTER: Yes, sir.
*******************
There you go... Sen. Coats quoting Bill Clinton from April 6th, 1998.. (still looking for a link that has a copy of that speech).
Oh goodness.. so MANY "golden moments" in this testimony, E... Thanks for motivating me to research this.. ;0)
This little "diddie" from one of the major CURRENT opponents to Bush's decision to militarily enforce the UNSC resolutions:
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Major, thank you very much for being here, and thank you for doing what you're doing. You know, I think one of the big problems is that, with respect to the congressional action in February, I think the case has never really been made to the American people and perhaps even to this Congress. And I think what you're doing today is effectively making the case because what's clear to me at least is that the United States at this time, cannot afford to be a paper tiger and neither can the Security Council. And if that's going to be the case, then we might as well just pull up our stakes and move away. Having said that, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions because I think what this does is in essence join a national debate on the subject: Are we going to press for full inspection? Are we going to do what we say we're going to do, or are we going to back away when the going gets rough? I want to refer, if I can, to your article in the Wall Street Journal this morning. And you mention that on July 15th representatives -- and I take it you used the word "both countries," that's the United States and Great Britain --
Ohh.. That was just WONDERFUL to find that quote.. Just WONDERFUL!!!
Diane Feinstein telling the American people that the US can't be seen as a "paper tiger" in this inspection process..
Oh Joy!!!!!!
Listen folks.. I hope all of you who continue to see Mr. Ritter as some kind of currently reputable source should read all of his testimony.. If there's anything that credible about Mr. Ritter, it's probably his testimony about a subject that, at that time, had ample confirmation from other sources.
Hawk |
