Posted on 09/12/2002 8:36:15 PM PDT by Undertow
Brilliant Bush
WITH the cool precision of a surgeon, George Bush cut deep into the poison of Saddam Hussein’s deadly regime.
In one of the most powerful speeches the United Nations has witnessed, Bush laid bare the “grave and gathering danger” of the Iraqi dictator.
The President destroyed those critics who brand him a cowboy who shoots first and thinks later.
Bush spoke in careful, clinical detail of Saddam’s decade of contempt for UN resolutions.
He brilliantly shifted the burden for the decision to take action against Iraq on to the UN.
The tactic, urged on him by Tony Blair, makes it very difficult for the world to do nothing.
Bush’s catalogue of Saddam’s crimes against humanity chilled the blood.
The TORTURE of his people by beating, burning, electric shock and rape.
His massive STOCKPILES of deadly chemical and biological weapons, some of which he has already used on his own citizens.
His continued QUEST for nuclear warheads and long-range missiles.
His SUPPORT for the terrorists behind 9/11 and the suicide bombers who attack Israel.
Bush laid it on the line. If we ignore this evidence, we gamble recklessly with millions of lives.
It was fighting talk, tempered by recognition that removing the threat of Saddam is a common challenge, not just a go-it-alone operation by America.
But Bush left no doubt that if the UN won’t act ... then America will.
We can choose between a world of fear or a world of progress, he said - but we can’t just stand by.
As Bush made clear, this is a defining moment for the UN. Unless it enforces its resolutions, it will become an irrelevance.
Likening Saddam to Hitler, Bush said world peace must never again be destroyed by one man.
To those who doubt Saddam’s threat, Bush said that on 9/11 we saw the intent of our enemies.
If Saddam provides them with nuclear weapons they will be on a short cut to their mad ambitions.
The world cannot afford to ignore Bush’s grim warning.
Terrific TV
THE BBC should repeat the documentary on 9/11 it showed on Wednesday night.
It was the most powerful piece of television ever screened. Jules and Gedeon Naudet's film of the Duane Street firefighters was unspeakably moving.
This was history as it happened.
How can we ever forgive the evil-doers who perpetrated this act of terror?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2002421447,00.html
The first time I saw it I kept hearing the fireman who said, "How bad is it up there if the better option is to jump?"
Last night what stayed with me was, after the first of the towers fell, and the one brother was lighting the way out of Tower 1 with his camera, one firefighter ahead of him says, "You shouldn't be here." And even the light he shone looked dejected, and out of place, and sad.
It is such a magnificent piece of... work? Art? It's just a miracle of a movie. It breaks the heart while it steels the spine.
(P.S. Breezed through your live threads today... how you managed to sit through the (Triple)X-42 is a testament to your commitment to public service ;^)
If the UN doesn't act to enforce it's own resolutions, then THEY have broken the contract/treaty and we are freed of any obligations to that organization.
I also think that the interview CBS aired right before is part of that full historical record since it showed not only the uncertainty of the reports to the President but the depth of the president's selfless character and natural leadership.
Of all the amazing things on TV yesterday what BLEW ME AWAY was the amount of time the President spent with the people at Ground Zero after the ceremony. Two hours! I was mesmerized by his genuine attention, and love.
During the interview it was mentioned that he had spent 2 and a half hours with victims' relatives, OFF CAMERA, after his first visit there post-9/11.
Bush rocks.
Regards, Ivan
I saw the BBC coverage of the speech later on CSPAN. It was eye-opening. They didn't get it. They had some bizarre, hyperactive British commentator who seemed to think Bush's speech was a victory for some group he called the "doves" in Bush's administration. Bush was willing to work with the U.N. on inspectors, he said-- but only inspectors. There was no mention of Bush's other fierce demands. This commentator confidently predicted it would be months before anything was done. Then we would have to wait and see whether new inspections were working.
Can these people really be so clueless? They had William Kristol, from _The Weekly Standard_, on the show to dispel any myths. Kristol said, rightly, that the president had planned this speech for months. The U.S. is not optimistic about any new "inspections"-- indeed, Bush didn't mention anything about inspectors at all in the speech. Then the Brit commentator asked whether Bush was serious about attacking "even if" the U.N. Security Council voted to do something else. ?? Well, yes, Bush means to do just that, Kristol replied.
Even now, some of the Brits cling to the delusion that we're going to get sucked back into the ridiculous morass of "inspections" for some indeterminate length of time. I think many of them-- English speaking people, no less-- just don't understand that the U.S. has simply had it with the U.N. There isn't going to be any screwing around this time. They simply do not appreciate Bush's quite sincere and deep feelings of determination on this matter. He is going to act. Of that I am sure.
Then the Brit commentator asked whether Bush was serious about attacking "even if" the U.N. Security Council voted to do something else. ?Correct me if I am wrong, please, but don't we have veto power over anything voted on by the Security Council? And as such, if we don't want them to vote to do something else, the Security Council won't be able to vote to do something else?
This is key to a theory I've been thinking about for some time. Being an inveterate fan of cop shows, I think that everyone has had an inaccurate concept of what's been going on in the Bush administration regarding Colin and the State Dept. vs. Cheney, Rumsfield, and the "hawks". I don't think there's a conflict. I think everything's been going according to plan. Colin is the Good Cop. Cheney is the Bad Cop.
Before 9/11/01, we couldn't even get the U.N. to enforce it's own resolutions. It was a non-starter. The sanctions were going nowhere, and everyone wanted us to just drop the whole thing, with no penalty to Saddam. So Cheney becomes mostly invisible, the Bad Cop/crazy man locked away who would pop out every so often, say "Bomb the bastards back to the stone age", and hide away again. Bush plays along, and everyone starts to wake up that Cheney might carry the day, that "cowboy" Bush might actually do this. What the hell, if everyone's going to think that Bush is a cowboy, why not use it? Then, after a while of this, with everyone nervous and off balance, Colin comes up as the Good Cop (which he takes a bunch of undeserved crap for) and starts talking about inspectors again. Lots of visible criticism of him from the "hawks" to make it look good.
So, finally, Bush gives his speech, and tells the world, "O.K., either you go along with the Good Cop or I let the Bad Cop have his way." Anybody who's a fan of NYPD Blue (before it turned into a soap opera) or Law and Order sees this almost every week. The world, relieved, falls in with the Good Cop, and we get what we wanted all along.
I say that this is what we wanted all along because the odds are that Saddam won't go along with the resolutions. What we do after that is key. What we should do, in my opinion, is what we should have done to begin with, and which I said at the time. If the inspectors show up to inspect a facility, and if they are refused, they shouldn't argue. They also shouldn't file a protest with the U.N. or anyone else. They should just go back to the truck, drive a few miles away, get on the radio, and watch a B-52 file a few dozen GBU's into the middle of the facility. Once Saddam's been shown to be impotent, one of his own people will kill him.
Yes, the S.C. can vote no on any U.S. proposed action. But the S.C. can't vote to do "something else" over the U.S. veto. That is my point. They can vote against what we propose, but they can't vote to do something "else" that we don't approve of, due to our veto rights.
I guess the commentator was confused by what Bush Bush made clear:
1) Failing to do anything is not an option.
2) Failure by the UN to agree to do something renders the UN irrelevant.
3) The US will act if the UN doesn't.
Proves a lot - they don't know Bush. They haven't watched the U.S. in the past two years and how they handle situations. They don't really understand the impact of a 9/11 on America and her leader.
If they knew Bush - they would know when he says something he means it. They would know that he intends to protect America - not negotiate. They would know that the people of the U.S. are not going to sit back and wait to be killed by playing of politics, by negotiating or by those afraid.
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.