|
After hearing
Jessica Matthews on Friday assessing the situation at the UN, and then Sunday a
prerecorded former UN Ambassador and Sec of State Madeline Albright speak with
the current French Ambassador to the US, I am leaning to the conclusion that we
would be much better off to elect a woman for President in 2004. – Karen PBS End Games March 14, 2003 @ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/endgame_3-14.html
“JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS: Well, if you thought you could get
nine votes, then I think they would take it even though the French would veto
because it would be a moral
victory, and it would be considered-- it
would be a majority of the Security Council. And there is great unhappiness
among all countries about the existence of the veto power, which seems to sort
of be obsolete in a sense anyway, be left over from an earlier era. So that
would be one thing, and that would be a victory. But in my understanding, they're
really not close to that. And I don't see-- you know, this is about a set of countries that
believe inspections under certain conditions can work, and the U.S. , which has
changed its mind on that. And
because the U.S. is now saying our goal is regime change there is absolutely no reason, and every
disincentive for Saddam to comply with the inspections because why would you
give up your most important weapons right in advance of being invaded, right? I would entirely agree that with
what Ed said earlier, that the big problems began actually in 1995 when the
Clinton administration first began to change its mind back and forth of whether
the issue is regime change or disarmament. We have broad international support for the disarmament
goal. We have almost none for the regime change goal. And every
time we go back and forth, we lose more for the disarmament. (end of excerpt) Outgoing mail scanned by NAV 2002 |
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
