Time for bold clarity

By Hal Lindsey

The U.N. is terrified at the prospect of having to pass a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein for ignoring 16 previous resolutions. It required a visit from the president of the United States to remind them that Saddam was ignoring them.

Kofi Annan knew why the president was coming. To save face, he mentioned Iraqi violations in his opening remarks. Annan then said Saddam was the second-worst threat to global peace in the world today.

Annan listed Iraq second because, in his view, Israel was number one.

This week, President Bush outlined the reasons why Saddam must go for the umpteenth time. Allow me to offer this synopsis: The president says if we don’t kill Saddam, he’ll kill us.

Maybe I’m thick, but I’m not getting it. Isn’t that what everybody has said since Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998. I know that Clinton said it. I know that then-Vice President Al Gore was in complete agreement. I know that’s what Scott Ritter told the U.N. in 1998. President Clinton launched a mini-war called Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

Back then, Clinton answered the many “wag the dog” criticisms by fervently making the case that Saddam was a threat to world peace. Today he says Saddam’s not a threat to anybody. Which time was he telling the truth?

Al Gore gave a speech this week where he suggested the Bush Doctrine makes America an international outlaw. “After Sept. 11, we had enormous sympathy, goodwill and support around the world,” Gore said Monday. “We’ve squandered that, and in one year we’ve replaced that with fear, anxiety and uncertainty, not at what the terrorists are going to do but at what we are going to do.”

So now, according to Gore, if America attacks Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, it becomes the world’s enemy numero uno. Saddam was the enemy until Bush said Saddam was the enemy. Then Saddam became a relatively harmless dictator who hasn’t the means to harm anyone. So I ask again, was Gore telling the truth in 1998 or today?

In the Middle East, that principle is called, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Gore has established who his real enemy is, and guess who – it isn’t Saddam. He is a lot more concerned about making political gains than dealing with such “minor threats” as Saddam.

Meanwhile, President Bush is hammering away at the U.N., suggesting that a failure to pass a tough new resolution against Saddam Hussein will make the global body “irrelevant” to the 21st century. The president proclaimed to 2,000 loudly cheering supporters who were gathered in an Army National Guard Aviation hangar, “The discussion is now in the United Nations Security Council. Soon they will reveal to the world whether they’re going to be relevant, or whether they’re going to be weak. For the sake of world peace, I hope they’re relevant. However, for the sake of freedom and peace, if the United Nations will not deal with Saddam Hussein, the United States and our friends will.”

Then, last week, the real global enemy attracted the interest of the U.N. and away from “the minor threat” of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Israel surrounded Yasser Arafat’s compound in Ramallah and demanded the surrender of 20 terrorist suspects. When Arafat refused, the Israelis laid siege to the compound. While Saddam got a total pass for the last four years, the U.N. sprang to action against Israel in less than a week. This simply goes to prove my earlier analysis – in the eyes of the U.N., Israel is world enemy number one.

The U.N. Security Council demanded that Israel stop its siege of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s compound. The “prompt action” was assured by the fact that Syria currently holds the rotating presidency on the Security Council.

After marathon negotiations lasting until after midnight, the council adopted a European-drafted compromise text on Tuesday. It was a compromise in that it also called on the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for terrorist acts to justice.

The United States called the resolution one-sided and had wanted a specific condemnation against Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups for the bombings of civilians.

But for all America’s tough talk, we compromised again and refrained from vetoing the measure against Israel – just as we have on so many similar draft resolutions in the past. We continue to not make a firm stand in support of our only friend in the Middle East in order not to offend our Arab “friends.”

I believe it is time to stick with our proven true friends, brand those who are playing politics with America’s survival and let the chips fall where they may. Our survival is at stake.