On NOW at RadioFR!
Join the Luis Gonzalas, the Banana Republican and INTERVIEWS FROM CPAC! Mark Levin, Daniel Flynn and Peter Roff!
Posted on 02/06/2003 12:23:54 PM PST by Peach
On NOW at RadioFR!
Join the Luis Gonzalas, the Banana Republican and INTERVIEWS FROM CPAC! Mark Levin, Daniel Flynn and Peter Roff!
There's never enough poppycock. My poppycock is too often lost in my gobbledygook, falderol and balderdash.
I'll go with my take.
Disney, through its many subsidiaries puts out all kinds of garbage, that is true. If you don't like it, don't buy it. That's the approach I take. A lot of what Disney offers at its theme parks is wholesome family entertainment. Don't start with the Gay Days stuff because its not a Disney event. The gays arrange this on their own and Disney can't stop them from coming in. Sorry, but that would be illegal. Granted, they should take greater steps to stop the lewd behavior, but they can't control the patrons anymore than Jim can control the trolls who post crap on FR.
Bosh! Hogwash! Tommyrot! Rigmarole! Mumbo-jumbo! Hooey! Fiddlefaddle!
Except that he would, no matter what. A failure by the UN to approve action against Iraq would cut some of the legs out from under Bush's plan, at least to some people around the world and here at home.
Today's speech clearly was intended to serve two purposes:
1. Light a fire under the UN, to let them know that no matter how they might close their eyes and wish real hard, war's coming to Iraq barring a miraculous last-minute capitulation by Saddam Hussein. The value of this message is that the UN won't be tempted to waffle, delay, or outright vote against action simply in the hopes of stopping war -- that won't help. This increases the chances of them just throwing in the towel and actually voting to approve the action.
2. He was also pointing out to the UN in as forceful terms as possible while still being semi-diplomatic that their own relevance and reputation are heavily on the line here. If they drop this ball, they're likely to go the way of the League of Nations. This, too, increases the chances of a resolution getting passed. Bush said, and I quote, "Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning". He put a strong, meaningful emphasis on the word "any". His message was crystal clear.
In short, Bush was saying, "the train's leaving soon, and don't delude yourselves into thinking you can stop it -- now, are you coming along, or will you let yourself be left behind?"
It's last call for the UN. That was the purpose of today's speech.
Flapdoodle!
Powell gave a great "here's the evidence" speech to the UN. But it was Bush's job to say as a capper what Powell couldn't, which is, "now what are you going to do about it -- and whatever you're going to do, do it fast."
Powell saying something like that would have undercut his fine presentation, and distracted from the evidence itself. Bush saying it, on the other hand, is exactly his role. And Bush waited over 24 hours for the UN to mull over the evidence, but not so long that the issue had cooled and been moved back to "we'll get around to this next week" status.
I think the timing was impeccable.
ROFL! I like it.
That had occurred to me too. Although the last half of the speech was squarely aimed at the UN and made important points that had to be made, the first half, and the sudden "we're having a press conference" announcement (not to mention the timing, which was near nightfall in Baghdad -- a good time for us to attack) seemed calculated to give the impression that it was a commencement of war speech.
The first half, especially, sounded very much like a lead-up to a "we're bombing now" announcement.
I think Bush and his administration are smart enough to do such fake-out plays for exactly the reason you suggest, at the same time that they're delivering a very much-needed "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" message to the UN.
It wouldn't surprise me. Just last week we bombed one of Iraq's major missile centers near the coast. Unlike past bombings, it wasn't even because they had targeted or fired on one of our planes in the no-fly zones -- nor did we pretend that was our reason. The US simply announced that we bombed it because it was "a threat" to our ships at sea, period. It was widely reported but didn't make much of a news splash for some reason.
Clearly, we're softening them up already, and will undoubtedly continue to do so.
"...and hell's coming with him!"
Oh, wait, I'm mixing my western movies, aren't I? ;-)
Only FOX AllStar Fred Barnes ventured an analysis close to my take? LOL! Well, if Mara and Mort don't agree ... then I must be wrong! I hope Juan doesn't think badly of me either.
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.