Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush stands tall at a time when many stand back
Chicago Tribune ^ | March 18, 2003 | John Kass

Posted on 03/18/2003 6:17:43 AM PST by conservativecorner

President Bush spent about 15 minutes Monday night speaking simply and clearly, with none of that phony diplomatic preening that has oozed out of the United Nations recently.

It was direct, just enough to reassure America that its president was resolute, just enough to give a clear message to the generals of the Iraqi dictator that if their boss won't stop the war to save their people, then they can stop it, now, by acting.

"All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end," Bush said in his speech to the nation. "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing."

The diplomats of the UN won't like that, they'll wring their hands, they'll pout, particularly the French, probably because there was no sophisticated posing in it, none of the vague unctuousness they've become famous for lately.

And that's too bad.

It was plain speech from Bush on Monday. There were no clauses camouflaged within other clauses, and no nuance to obscure meaning. There was no shading and peace posing, no more playing for time.

Playing for time with Hussein has been the game of our queasy allies.

They've used Iraq and their votes on the UN Security Council as leverage. It has had less to do with Iraq than with the pursuit of their own power and influence, a means of dealing with the U.S. in the post-Cold War world.

Most of us who've been watching can understand the interests in play, the French in Europe, Russia, a former superpower finding it terribly difficult to see the world being sculpted without it.

So they pursue their interests and mask these interests in the language of diplomacy over Iraq. They ask for peace, but what they're doing is seeking a piece. And as they barter and pose, I keep remembering the silhouettes of the people jumping from the World Trade Center towers.

But their leaders' interests are not our interests, and our interests are about preventing rogue states like Iraq from teaming up with a terrorist organization, some group that could, possibly, open a canister of gas in an American harbor on a summer day.

The American president made the UN preening irrelevant Monday night.

He's been accused of being a simple man, a cowboy, but if so, then he's a simple man who's taking action.

I can think of complicated men, one especially, considered brilliant by his supporters, a man who charmed policy wonks with his grasp of foreign affairs.

But talking foreign policy and taking action are not the same thing. And this brilliant and complicated fellow dithered and hesitated, year after year with Hussein, and rattled his saber and shot off some missiles and declared victory in the late 1990s.

And all Hussein did was hunker down, snicker, and gather weapons, and wait.

What Bush did Monday was to explain to Americans why we can't wait, why we don't have to wait and why it is responsible to make war on Hussein's regime.

And it only took two paragraphs.

"In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this Earth," Bush said.

"Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense--it is suicide."

Just remember for yourselves, back to the days after Sept. 11, and the vows that were made, that we wouldn't let it happen again, that we'd do what was necessary.

Not everyone agrees with the president, and I can respect that.

There are some Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who opposed the congressional resolution authorizing military force against Hussein.

I think she's wrong, but she's consistent in her opposition, and I respect that.

Others, though, who voted for the resolution are changing their minds, seeking a safe perch from which to spit.

"I'm saddened," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who supported the resolution before the November elections, said Monday. "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

I'm saddened, too, that Daschle doesn't have the guts to stand up and repudiate his prior vote in the Senate, and speak simply, and take a stand.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; War on Terror
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 03/18/2003 6:17:43 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
that's a good article...and I notice the little RAT Daschle still playing politics and placing blame. He's a sad man.
2 posted on 03/18/2003 6:19:41 AM PST by jonalvy44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonalvy44
President Bush has demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of Clinton. He could have followed the polls and taken the path of least resistance. Instead the President led and has done his country proud.
3 posted on 03/18/2003 6:22:17 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
President Bush not only stands tall, he abides by his words. I'd like to see a show of hands among those anti-war protestors who knew that Clinton in '98 signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which called for regime change but instead bombed Serbia. Following are Daschle's comments after voting to approve the Liberation Act: Read what Daschle had to say about Saddam and his weapons back when Bill Clinton was president:

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? ... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

And what is Daschle saying now? Now that we have a Republican in the White House who is finally going to do what Clinton should have done ten years ago? Daschle says that he’s “.. saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.” Wow, that’s quite a switch from his Clinton era pronouncements, isn’t it?

Daschle goes even further. He is getting on the bandwagon early to lay the blame squarely at the feet of George Bush for any fatalities American troops may suffer. Daschle doesn’t blame Hussein for failing to live up to his agreement to disarm. He blames Bush for responding to Hussein’s failures and threats.


4 posted on 03/18/2003 6:22:32 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Bump for a good editorial
5 posted on 03/18/2003 6:22:49 AM PST by PoisedWoman (Fed up with the liberal media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
I really really don't like Tommy dASShole. He should be censured for attacking the President on the brink of war.
6 posted on 03/18/2003 6:26:56 AM PST by linn37 (WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YOUR ASS ITS THE AMERICAN WAY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
PING
7 posted on 03/18/2003 6:37:17 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
try to find the comments from William Hague today in the house of commons

some wonderful quotes about America

like

Those who won't take action when a criminal is coming down the street should not complain when someone else acts as the policeman. The reason the US takes on so many of these actions is because the rest of the world shirks their responsibility.
8 posted on 03/18/2003 6:39:22 AM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chi-townChief
SWEEEET PING!!!!!! Thx
9 posted on 03/18/2003 9:41:16 AM PST by AbsoluteJustice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
President Bush has demonstrated himself to be the antithesis of Clinton. He could have followed the polls and taken the path of least resistance. Instead the President led and has done his country proud.

Amen to that. Weasels like Clinton follow the polls and appeal to the masses. Great leaders, on the other hand, take the lead and the polls follow. Our President is a great leader. George W. Bush takes a stand, takes risks in the name of principle, and he inspires confidence. He does not follow the whims of a fickle public, but his own conscience, based upon strong, unwaivering principles. And when our public forgets these principles, our President reminds them with his courage and resolve, and they follow.

What a difference a leader makes.
10 posted on 03/18/2003 10:31:49 AM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson