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

Skip to comments.

Bush's pressure is on UN, not just Saddam
Toronto Sun ^ | January 30, 2003 | Peter Worthington

Posted on 01/30/2003 1:53:25 PM PST by Clive

Anyone watching President Bush's state of the union speech Tuesday night can have few doubts: He's going after Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The hour-long speech was filled with significant economic and tax stuff, but all boiled down to Iraq -- and a subliminal warning to the UN Security Council that their meeting Wednesday next week will be their last chance to okay a U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein.

If you think about it, it's the UN that's on the hot seat.

If America acts alone, or leads the Brits and Aussies against Saddam, it likely means the UN is finished as a significant forum of international political decision --

especially if Saddam is decisively trounced.

It's hard to see the Security Council abdicating what little influence it has left, especially when America is led by a president of Bush's fervour, faith and resolve.

He just ain't going to stop.

Most interesting were Bush's revelations from U.S. intelligence agencies that tens of thousands of litres of chemical and biological weapons that Saddam was known to have produced up to 12 years ago have vanished.

No trace has been found of their destruction.

Weapons inspectors are on a "scavenger hunt" in an area the size of California. If Saddam has destroyed them, how come weapons inspectors haven't been shown when, where and how?

Some 25,000 litres of anthrax, 38,000 litres of toxin, tons of mustard and other gases. No evidence whatsoever that they've been destroyed, except for a dozen empty chemical weapons shells.

This was a different George Bush talking to Congress and the nation -- a sombre, resolute, businesslike Bush. None of the good ol' boy Bush, no singling out people in the crowd for accolades, no homilies.

It was a Bush warning of war. Speaking to the troops around the frontiers of Iraq and on aircraft carriers, he said: "You believe in America, and America believes in you," and then he addressed the people of Iraq, assuring (warning?) them that "your enemies are not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country."

You get the feeling that there's no bluffing in Bush, and that he means it when he says that when Saddam is attacked "we will bring to the Iraqi people food, medical supplies and freedom."

If you are American, it is difficult to resist the emotional appeal of the president proclaiming "the call of history has come to the right country."

Has Bush made a persuasive case for war? Hard to say, but what he has done is make a persuasive case that he intends to wage war against a dictator who is the embodiment of evil.

When one looks at the tortures, murders and wicked acts Saddam has committed to entrap his country, it's hard to disagree that removing him would better the world. Torturing children, wives, relatives to get confessions from suspects, then butchering them is mindful of Stalin.

This state of the union speech seems to indicate that the end game has begun against Saddam. Bush met yesterday with members of Congress to further provide reasons for war, and today he meets Canada's Foreign Minister Bill Graham (that should be fun for both!) to explain his case and get Canada on side.

Poor Mr. Graham. He's captive of what the PM tells him, so he'll likely indulge in platitudes which may mean anything or nothing. Par for Canada. Finally, Bush's intentions are summed up in the sentence: "Trusting the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not an option."

War now seems inevitable, and the fate of the UN may hinge on its decision this coming Wednesday.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
"Trusting the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not an option."
1 posted on 01/30/2003 1:53:25 PM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Great Dane; liliana; Alberta's Child; Entropy Squared; Rightwing Canuck; Loyalist; canuckwest; ...
-
2 posted on 01/30/2003 1:53:42 PM PST by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
This Canuck thinks W is series.
3 posted on 01/30/2003 2:01:16 PM PST by Forrestfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Here's another article I posted earlier, also from a Canadian:It's time for Kofi to get out of town. It's From the NationalPost, and I don't think even the JBS ever printed anything more anti UN.
4 posted on 01/30/2003 2:04:47 PM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
no singling out people in the crowd for accolades

Glad someone else picked up on that. I think this is the first SOTU speech where I haven't seen the old (admittedly, Reagan invented it :p) "and over there is Bob Johnson, whose family was eaten by a pack of wolves, and who has fifteen different diseases, and we HAVE TO HELP PEOPLE LIKE BOB". (wasn't the original an old lady named Emily? I think...)

5 posted on 01/30/2003 2:05:37 PM PST by Kip Lange (The Khaki Pants of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
the fate of the UN may hinge on its decision this coming Wednesday.

Oh how I wish that were true, but the cancer of the UN I'm afraid will never go away. As long as people believe that there is a "good person" at the core of everyone, the idealistic UN, or some form of it, will be there.

6 posted on 01/30/2003 2:23:25 PM PST by HeadOn (The direction of the United Stated does not depend on the decisions of others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Bump
7 posted on 01/30/2003 2:23:33 PM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
If America acts alone, or leads the Brits and Aussies against Saddam, it likely means the UN is finished as a significant forum..

The UN hasn't be a significant forum for some time. It's just that not everyone has figured that out yet.
8 posted on 01/30/2003 2:25:42 PM PST by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
"platitudes which may mean anything or nothing. Par for Canada."

'Tis unfortunate, the state of their spine. I would prefer a strong, resolute, moral country to our North.

9 posted on 01/30/2003 2:26:22 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Islamofascism sucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
"I would prefer a strong, resolute, moral country to our North"

You had your Klintoon era.....we're still crunchin' on the little Cretin. The taste is bitter and causes untold gastronomical upset. He holds power with less than 45% of the popular vote, sound familiar?.........I think these times we are in, and the sensibility of George Bush, will spread northward. It just takes longer to thaw up here.

10 posted on 01/30/2003 2:52:32 PM PST by FreeCanuckistan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreeCanuckistan
And also Bush is doing a GREAT job of snubbing and shaming Creepien, (if that's possible). I can't see the Liberals a$$es going down the road soon enough.
11 posted on 01/30/2003 3:55:47 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (all us Western Canuks belong South)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Every snub GW gives to Canada really stings. But I don't blame him in the least....you are right in that "Bush is doing a great job of snubbing and shaming Creepien,(if that's possible)".....except for the shaming part. Our PM has no shame, it's very clear.

I loved it out west....but home is where family is.

12 posted on 01/30/2003 4:07:10 PM PST by FreeCanuckistan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Clive
bump to read later
13 posted on 01/30/2003 7:09:22 PM PST by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Sorry Canada, the train has already left the station.
14 posted on 01/30/2003 7:13:16 PM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive; All
Great article from Charles Krauthammer today. It's from the JWR, so I'll post a link rather than the article:UN RIP:Having proved itself impotent in the Balkan crisis and now again in the Iraq crisis, the United Nations will sink once again into irrelevance. This time it will not recover. And the world will be better off for it.
15 posted on 01/31/2003 7:26:40 AM PST by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | 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