Posted on 03/01/2003 8:10:50 AM PST by MadIvan
WASHINGTON, March 1 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush on Saturday said the United States was determined to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Iraqi President Saddam Hussein surrender the country's weapons of mass destruction and called on Iraq to undergo a regime change.
"This dictator will not be allowed to intimidate and blackmail the civilized world, or to supply his terrible weapons to terrorist groups, who would not hesitate to use them against us. The safety of the American people depends on ending this threat," Bush said during his weekly radio address.
Bush used his remarks to argue his case for possible military action in Iraq. The United States has criticized the Arab nation for its failure to account for missing biological and chemical weapons, its stockpile of al-Samoud 2 missiles and what it calls the Iraqi government's brutality toward its citizens.
"The lives and freedom of the Iraqi people matter little to Saddam Hussein, but they matter greatly to us," Bush said Saturday.
The United States, Britain and Spain introduced a draft resolution late Monday afternoon during a meeting of the Security Council in New York. In the terse, carefully crafted one-line statement, the three nations declared that: "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice told reporters this week: "In that sense, it is an affirmation of the council's willingness to enforce its own resolution."
The president stepped up his public relations campaign to convince the American public and the international community that Hussein remains a threat to stability in the Middle East and world security.
"If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction," Bush said Saturday.
On Wednesday, Bush delivered a nationally televised speech before the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He revealed his vision of how a war with Iraq could reshape the Middle East where U.S. power would remain to guarantee a democratic government for Iraq and bolster reforms in other Middle Eastern states. But Bush said the United States would not determine the form of Iraq's new government.
"That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected," Bush said.
The administration is seeking $379.9 billion in its 2004 budget request for the Pentagon. U.S. officials said this week that Bush has not yet been briefed on the amount the Pentagon is planning to ask for. According to various news reports, the Office of Management and Budget has said the Pentagon's portion of the budget is likely to be around $60 billion. That would be close to what was spent in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, which cost $61 billion. Of that amount, $50 billion was paid by the allies, who transferred the money to the United States.
This week the Defense Department revealed plans that could mean 200,000 U.S. troops would stay in Iraq for an indefinite period. The administration also detailed its plans for humanitarian efforts to aid civilians likely to be caught in the fighting.
"We will deliver medicine to the sick, and make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating with supplies from the oil-for-food program, are stocked and open as soon a possible," Bush said Saturday. "We are stockpiling relief supplies, such as blankets and water containers, for 1 million people. We are moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry."
Bush said the United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and UNICEF so they will be ready to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.
Critics have drawn parallels between U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and what they believe will happen in Iraq should it wage a war there. Analysts who have studied what the United States has done in the year since it began its military campaign in Afghanistan say that Bush administration officials have failed miserably in providing Afghanistan with the billions of dollars in assistance to rebuild the tiny nation.
The United States in October 2001 launched a major military offensive aimed at ridding the nation of its terrorist ties and a massive global manhunt for suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and the country's Taliban leadership. While a few members of the Taliban were captured, bin Laden and members of his inner circle have never been found.
Promises of a Marshall Plan-like reconstruction plan for Afghanistan never materialized, Peter Singer, a foreign policy fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington, told United Press International. It is estimated it would take about $20 billion to get Afghanistan on track, but the U.S. financial commitment has fallen far short of that figure, he said. The Bush administration forgot to add funding in its 2004 federal budget proposal to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, only to have go back and put in $300 million.
Some humanitarian groups fear that what they have seen happen in Afghanistan will happen in Iraq if there is war. Bush said Saturday that rebuilding Iraq would require a "sustained commitment" from many nations, including the United States.
This could look like the liberation of Rome.
For you to have any faith in Saddam's willingness to disarm is idiotic. For you to suggest "The latest development is that 22 Arab countries are having a summit and hopefully will help Saddam to disarm." is a symptom of a naivete that borders on criminal negligence.
Saddam is not going to disarm. Are you clear on this point? This whole charade has made that obvious except to the most blinkered fools. The only way Iraq is going to be rid of these weapons is if Iraq is rid of Saddam. And it is high time it was done.
Ivan
There are two schools of thought promolagted by hawks to expalin recent events.
First, the US has it's own time table, without primary regard to the ditherings at the UN. This scheduled has indeed been delayed by logistic considerations and the natural caution of the military heiarchy. Turkey's wranglings would a prime example.
The second school says that the statemans on the Bush team have argued that there is a window of acceptable force reduction and what have we got loose if we wait a little longer inside that window.
I'm with the statesman. If we can wait 3 or 4 more weeks with only a small increase in casualities and a tremendous savings in material why not.
However, I fail to see what he has to do with this.
My point is that there are far more serious threats to the US. Saudi Arabia, open borders, NK and the Chinese should be higher on our list than Iraq. We are going to be wasting good money, and perhaps good lives, in the invasion and subsequent nation building of Iraq.
That was indeed my point.
Although he did manage to bestir himself to worry about the growing threat from Iraq in 1998. Coincidentally while he was under threat of impeachment. Afterwards he lapsed back into "so what?" mode.
He was only interested in Saddam being a threat when it served as a distraction. Clinton was right when he said during Operation Desert Fox that Saddam was a danger; he lacked the rigour to finish it.
This lack of rigour meant that terrorists were also emboldened, as we found out on September 11th.
My point is that there are far more serious threats to the US. Saudi Arabia, open borders, NK and the Chinese should be higher on our list than Iraq. We are going to be wasting good money, and perhaps good lives, in the invasion and subsequent nation building of Iraq.
Nonsense, absolute tripe. Saddam at the very least is pouring cash into the terrorist cause - in Israel, he funds the Palestinian terrorists to the tune of $25,000 per suicide bomb. It was Baghdad where the likes of Abu Nidal found refuge; it is highly unlikely he was just there for his health. What is more is that he has made plain his desire for weapons of mass destruction, his willingness to use them, and his lack of hesitancy to invade other nations. As Margaret Thatcher put it in "Statecraft", there will be neither peace nor stability in the Middle East until he's gone.
Eliminate him.
Ivan
We report you decide.
Whether or not Cabahug is clear or not, President Bush appears to be very clear.
When (not if) this liberation of Iraq and removal of Saddam goes down, Hussein will have had more warning to shape up than any nutcase in history.
Saddam, failing spectacularly at midterms, was given a Final Exam (Res 1441). He was also told "Ace the Final", and we'll forget you haven't been in class for twelve years.
He has been warned, it will not be a surprise when we attack except to those who have not been paying attention, or are living in a dream world.
The UN has been on notice as well that they better get real relevant real fast or we'll take over the job for them with our allies.
Does the UN appear to be hearing this? Not from what I see. Russia threatens veto, France threatens veto, many others in the "Axis of Weaklings" are looking for handouts (kind of like Gore trying to sell his vote re: Gulf War I which I think is an unexplored topic).
The Second Resolution (really 18th) is the Final Exam.
The UN is in the midst of the final, but there is only ten minutes left on the clock, and they haven't done anything yet but write their name on the top of the test.
The UN will fail as well. I hope they do because a body without enforcement power is of no use in a world that needs to be quickly brought back to a state of ORDER.
The US will assume the role that the UN has abdicated, along with our allies like the UK, and AUstralia, and Spain, and New Europe. The world will be a better place for our actions.
Freedom will be advanced over the next tne years.
But all the leftist protests have given So-Dumb hope . . . keep in mind this tyrant is blind as a bat where foreign relations are concerned. Bush Numero Uno didn't blink before Desert Storm. Why in the heck would So-Dumb think his genetic-offspring would blink now? Hope springs eternal. ChIRAQ, Schroeder, Sarandon, Streisand, Ge-Barf-alo, etc. are the ones responsible for all the blood that will be spilled.
Let's take my argument to the streets . . . if you were facing a gang of twenty united ruffians, you'd probably be looking for an escape route or knee pads while simultaneously asking Allah, Jesus Christ, Buddha, and any other God you could think of for help -- even if you were Muhammad Ali in his prime. But if you were facing three or four ruffians interspersed amongst some Camp Fire Girls -- the French for example -- you might float like a butterfly and sting like a bee and your chances of surviving would be much, much better.
I think you're right . . . GW is on a mission he BELIEVES in and he'd gladly sacrifice a second term to make the world a tad bit safer.
The feel-gooders have made this fight far, far more likely to happen than was necessary. Let's hope history proves that.
So-Dumb has hope. Bush has a mission. Adios, So-Dumb.
So Saddam should be left in power to continue murdering and torturing Iraqi civilians? Raping women and cutting out the tongues of political dissidents? Starving children to death in the cell next to their mothers?
What kind of heartless barbarian thinks like that...please enlighten me.
There is right and wrong.
There is free and slavery. (and life under Dictators is slavery, worse than most plantations).
America will promote freedom.
When Presidents actually adhere to their values (sometimes referred to as "Character"), then of course people who think like them will re-elect.
President Bush will do what he thinks is right for America in the long-term regardless of popularity. ANd, for that he will be re-elected in a landslide unless he stops acting with character.
Maybe I am naive, but I don't think so. Bush/Cheney 2004!
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.