Tough stuff from Bush Jr.

Toronto Sun ^ | March 8, 2003 | Peter Worthington

[Clive]

President George Bush's prime time press conference Thursday night was not so much a final warning to Saddam Hussein, but possibly a last chance for the UN Security Council to prove it's not the League of Nations.

It's now irrefutably clear, if it wasn't before, that Bush is going to force a regime change in Iraq.

As much as Saddam is on the spot - get out while the getting is good - so is the UN Security Council. Its future is also at stake.

Personally, I suspect Saddam is made of tougher stuff than the UN - so far he's won every showdown with the UN (17 resolutions flouted).

But Bush the Younger is tougher than his daddy.

Both Saddam and the Security Council are facing respective moments of truth.

Unless the UN sticks with its earlier ultimatum to Saddam - Resolution 1441, unanimously passed four months ago that Saddam disarm immediately if not sooner or face "serious consequences" - it's the UN itself that'll face the serious consequence of being irrelevant.

Just as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 was the defining moment of President Jack Kennedy's presidency, so Iraq defines the Bush presidency.

The economy and domestic issues come and go, but how Bush deals with Saddam and terrorism is how he will be remembered by history.

It was clear from his somber, quiet, deceptively matter-of-fact and casual demeanour at the unusual press conference, that Bush has already made his decision and all the compromises he's going to make.

He seems at peace with himself, and in a curious way this instills confidence in his people.

The UN Security Council has yet to face its moment of truth - to co- operate with America, or watch from the sidelines as America leads the world.

It's curious that the UN is so depleted of integrity and courage at this critical moment, because there's no disagreement within the Security Council that Saddam is a tyrant who has thumbed his nose at civilized behaviour.

Canada has chosen to be a spectator in this coming war. For the first time in modern history we've not aligned ourselves with our English-speaking allies, the U.S, Britain and Australia in this quest to rid the world of an individual who not only threatens peace and stability, but wreaks even greater destruction on the people of Iraq.

The so-called anti-war movement can't distinguish between a great power seeking world domination (the former Soviet Union) and a great power seeking to be rid of a tyrant whose crimes against humanity exceed tolerance.

Bush is gambling his presidency on this war against terrorism, which must continue after Saddam is removed if it is to have lasting credibility.

For 30-plus years, international terrorism has been growing, mutating, devising new wrinkles - all with the intent to destabilize, cause fear and undermine.

Unless curtailed, it is only a matter of time before a suitcase nuclear weapon is detonated in a western country, or germ or chemical substance in unleashed among the innocent.

This is why Bush's war has to be supported.

He probably should have acted sooner. But his restraint has been considerable.

After Sept. 11, instead of America acting unilaterally, Bush agreed to form a coalition in this war; then he delayed to get approval from Congress; then he agreed to wait until he got UN approval; then he agreed to consult the UN again.

Now he says enough is enough.

America is going to war, unless Saddam quits.

It is bizarre, but necessary. And if Saddam unleashes bio-chemical weapons, it'll be all the more proof that he had to be removed.

The next move will be the UN's.

[Clive]

-

[Ann Archy]

Canada....CANADA is NOT siding with us????? CANADA??? Surrender monkeys -in-waiting. Boycott Canada.

[goldstategop]

Usually they say sequels suck but here the son clearly is heads above the father in how he's run the White House! Too bad we didn't have him in office 12 years ago... we might never have had Bill Clinton.

[RepublicanArmy]

Bush did the right thing & I agree his restraint shows that he takes this war seriously & not without pause to try & save lives. That being said he is doing what has to be done, without him at the wheel at this day & time I'm afraid we as a nation wouldn't have as great a chance at winning this war as we do!

[Chi-townChief]

Us going to the U.N. was pretty much a disaster putting more Americans in harm's way but it does have a way of shining a light on our so-called allies and seeing them for the vermin that they have become. This may be a time of great opportunity; a time to finally develop a national missile defense, a time to pull all of our forces from Europe and South Korea and let them tend to their own defense, drastically cut our financial support to the UN and NATO, and renegotiate out trade, immigration, and defense agreements with Canada and Mexico.

[kittymyrib]

But if Canada and the European socialist governments have to provide for their own defense, how will they be able to afford all those keen cradle-to-grave entitlements for their citizens?
Incidentally, why don't the western provinces of Canada pull out of that liberal sink-hole and petition for US statehood? They have much more in common with us than with their pathetic government. On second thought, the western states of the US have more in common with western Canada than we do with our own leftist coasts. Perhaps the entire hemisphere needs a redrawing....

[observer5]

"Us going to the U.N. was pretty much a disaster putting more Americans in harm's way but it does have a way of shining a light on our so-called allies and seeing them for the vermin that they have become."

I don't think you understand the brilliant movements of the GWB white house. He is addressing many problems at once.

Concronting Saddam

Exposing US allies and Non-allies

Making long overdue adjustements to the UN

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I agree. Bush & Company is a very shrewd group.

[DB]

A nuke can just as easily be delivered via a container ship instead of a missile.

There can be no letting up.

[Tripleplay]

And exposing the Democratic party for what it really is.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Just as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 was the defining moment of President Jack Kennedy's presidency, so Iraq defines the Bush presidency.

Clinton's defining moment will always be "Monica." How is that for a difining moment?

[Aeronaut]

Perhaps the entire hemisphere needs a redrawing....

I'd then have to move west. ;-)

[piasa]

Sorry - I'm hopelesly addicted to maple syrup, moose meat, and hockey.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

His impeachment was also his defining moment. I guess that makes two defining moments.

[ricpic]

Let's say in the vote coming up in the UN security council Tuesday (March 11), on the latest US, UK, Spanish resolution to fish or cut bait, the resolution gets 9 votes in favor, Russia and China abstain, and only France exersizes it's veto. Will that single veto sink the UN? Hoping it does but not sure. Comments?

[GRRRRR]

President George Walker Bush is NOT a "Junior" as his father's name is George Herbert Walker Bush...only anti-Bush people refer to him as "Junior", "Shrub" and other less dignified monikers...

GRRRRR

[Nick Danger]

As much as Saddam is on the spot... so is the UN Security Council. Its future is also at stake.

I was stunned yesterday by the behavior of the UN management. I had watched this long kabuki assuming that in the end, Kofi & Co. would not allow bureaucratic process or grandstanding Frenchmen to destroy the pleasant fiction that makes the United Nations seem important.

That is one magnificent conference room Kofi has, and he probably has a really nice desk, too. He also appears to spend lavishly on his haircuts and his suits.

In watching the festivities yesterday, I had to conclude that the trappings of office have gone to Mr. Annan's head. He apparently believes that he is a figure of some importance, and that he and his organization can do things that affect outcomes. In particular, what I saw yesterday was a gaggle of bureaucrats who seriously think that they control whether the U.S. military can or will be put to use in Iraq.

This surprised me. I had assumed that Hans Blix and Kofi Annan were reasonably sophisticated people. They had been asked, back in September, if they would like to decorate their magnificent conference room with a framed resolution purporting to "authorize" the U.S. to dispatch Mr. Saddam Hussein -- who had been flouting their other magnificently framed resolutions for years.

Instead I saw a consummate bureaucrat, Mr. Hans Blix, droning on as if trapped in a fantasy that includes the power to restrain the United States from doing what the United States has already announced that it is going to do. In listening to the man, it was impossible to escape the notion that he actually thinks that he has the power to hold the United States at bay while his fellow bureaucrats debate the issue in their fancy conference room.

This is a major disconnect from reality. It is easier to understand the perfidy of the French -- who at least have significant financial interest in keeping Saddam Hussein in power -- than it is to understand why Kofi Annan and Hans Blix would deliberately expose the UN to worldwide ridicule.

The UN has been quite clearly attempting to restrain Saddam Hussein from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. It has many, many framed resolutions in its fancy conference room to demonstrate this. Now, of all things, and in the name of bureaucratic process, it is attempting to restrain the United States from doing anything about the fact that Saddam is acquiring them anyway.

When the United States deposes Saddam Hussein and uncovers the fact that he had accumulated vast quantities of weaponry that the snide and cynical Mr. Blix made jokes about, the whole charade that is the UN will be exposed for all to see. In spite of the handsome and debonair Kofi Annan in his $2000 suits, and all the pompous resolutions in which the UN "remains seized of the matter," the UN in fact was seized of nothing, and consisted of nothing but hot air, pretension, and self-aggrandizing bureaucrats.

It does not make sense that Kofi Annan would want that outcome. He must think that something else is going to happen. Maybe he thinks that Saddam Hussein will disarm; or that the United States will not act to defend its own security if he says 'no.' Or the horse could talk.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In a related story, EuroDisney has cancelled their nightly fireworks display...the French garrison outside the park kept trying to surrender to Mickey Mouse and Goofy.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting this excellent editorial/oped.

It must be really tough for the good Canadians not be heard over the squealing of the bad Candadians in power!

I really feel sorry for you and the other good Canadians.