Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
there is information that the Iraq regime will deliver some WMD capability to al Quada operatives, who would use it to attack U.S. targets. Suppose that our government calculates that there is no reliable way to interdict each al Quada cell, but that it could interdict the WMD at the source.
A one in 10 or even one in 100 chance of successful release of anthrax in the Manhattan subway is unacceptable; the government must respond. And I have no difficulty accepting that releasing is unacceptable; the government must respond. And I have no difficulty accepting that releasing the raw data used to make that decision would unacceptably compromise intelligence sources.
For all of those who are sure that Iraq poses no (sometimes qualified as “immediate") threat to the U. S.: since in your prescience you know whether such a threat exists, why did you not warn us on Sept. 10?
I am not at all concerned about the lack of a fresh UN resolution. The UN is a bloated, self-aggrandizing bureaucracy, where political posturing suppresses any other consideration. President Bush has succinctly observed that if it is not yet clear to the Security Council that there are grounds for action against Iraq, then that group is irrelevant. Nations therefore must resort to unilateral means to defend their citizens.
There is no obligation to wait until Saddam Hussein further demonstrates his aggressiveness; he did that a decade ago.
He lost the ensuing “Mother of all Battles”, and, as a condition of cease-fire to retain his government, he agreed to disarm. He did not agree to surrender only those weapons Hans Blix could find; he agreed to destroy all such weapons and abandon further development. He deliberately broke that pledge (this is acknowledged by everyone outside of Iraqi diplomats, even France), and continues to defy the terms he accepted in 1991.
The criteria for which fighting was stopped are violated; we are therefore de facto back in the same state of war we were in before the cease-fire. And since then, the UN has reaffirmed the Iraq disarmament imperative with a series of “This time we really mean Stop” resolutions, most recently Resolution 1441, all of which clearly state
95.4%