Bush: U.S. will enforce resolution on Iraq

UPI ^ | March 1, 2003 | Kathy A. Gambrell

[JohnHuang2]

#32 is a MUST-READ.

[gbunch]

Agreed - a superb post. One additional thought I have is that by playing the UN game a little we get:

1. Extra time for planning and deployment.
2. The remote possibility that the Axis of Weasels will actually come around.
3. The very real possibility that the Weasels will veto the latest resolution.

Once again, the master strategerist is at work. #1 is a bonus, #2 would be nice, but is unlikely, and as already stated by the President, not necessary. If #3 comes to pass, the Weasels will have, officially and for the record, acted against their previous resolution 1441. In other words, they will have signed and notarized their own irrelevance and ineffectiveness, and certified he UN as just a hypocritical debating society. That would settle it once and for all, and the world could move on, leaving the UN on the ashheap of history.

Regardless of what the UN does, we'll go when the time is right. That time is almost upon us.

After the war, the USA will indeed step into the void just as Rob describes in his post. Whether the UN has certified their irrelevance or not via a vote, their actions will already have done so.

[geedee]

Well, well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up! What I find particularly curious is that Kofi Annan seems to "get it" - that the relevance of the U.N. is the only issue in this next resolution. Clinton didn't get U.N. approval to bomb Kosovo. As I recall, they came along weeks after.

Bush has made it a condition of relevance for the U.N.; IMHO, a Rove-like political stroke that he could play several different ways down the road.

[The Great Satan]

If someone is a threat to the safety of your family, wouldn't you take immediate action?

What if that person was already holding your family hostage?

[RobFromGa]

Thanks for the nice words. I think that the UN timeline has been managed by the buildup timeline. We always knew that the UN could go either way, but the buildup really isn't affected much either way.

The muscle and the risked lives and the resolve are coming from us and our allies. The weasels are not participating militarily in either case.

[ez]

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 ...

Good post. Regarding the above, it appears that the fellow travelers are guilty of believing their own press clippings.

FReegards...

[Dr. Frank fan]

If that was true, we should have taken Saddam out long ago.

I agree we should've. We were gonna, then everybody started whining that we had to go through the UN.

If someone is a threat to the safety of your family, wouldn't you take immediate action?

Yes. But (continuing the previous little tale), we started going through the UN, and Saddam, of course, had every incentive to play along and drag that out as long as possible, and no incentive to give us an open reason to attack. The fact that he didn't Openly Attack us doesn't mean he's "not a threat", just that he's no idiot.

I hope this explanation gives you a better understanding of these events. Best,

[RobFromGa]

Pres. Bush, addressing the UN Sept 12, 2002 (excerpt):

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Since then, we've debated and passed a Final Resolution and Saddam has failed spectacularly. The President could not have been more clear then, and in probably a dozen similar warnings to THE UN since, that they risk relevance.

Calling a party "Irrelevant" is a nuclear bomb in diplospeak.

The UN Security Council weasels are about to make a very foolish mistake. And the world will be better off without this unworkable system.

[FollowingTheGrace]

Now that Iraq has started to destroy the long-range missiles, Saddam should be given a chance to completely destroy the rest of his MWD. The latest development is that 22 Arab countries are having a summit and hopefully will help Saddam to disarm.

you're joking, right?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

BS.

If that was true, we should have taken Saddam out long ago.

If someone is a threat to the safety of your family, wouldn't you take immediate action?

Ummm... Hello? Bill Clinton was president while we did nothing. Bush has been working on doing something about this, and is about to do it, for the past 2 years.

[Salvation]

BTTT for the exams analogy.

[MinuteGal]

You are so yesterday. In fact, that's not too far from when you signed up here.

Leni

[RobFromGa]

thanks

[RobFromGa]

I appreciate the kind words.

[ez]

It appears that the fellow travelers are guilty of believing their own press clippings.

Sorry to repeat myself but reading back I decided my statement was too cryptic. What I mean is the Axis of Weasels is taking heart in the fact that anti-war protests are springing up all over the world to go ahead and veto, even while they inflate the numbers of protestors and make the movement seem larger than it is. They trump up and exaggerate dissent in the media and then use it as an excuse to act. They believe that which they fabricate. They believe their own press clippings.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree! Thank you so much for the excerpt!

[RobFromGa]

Regarding the above, it appears that the fellow travelers are guilty of believing their own press clippings.

Either that, or it's something in their Koolaid.

[RobFromGa]

Thanks for the nice words.

Considering that most of the people were protesting against America and against Bush rather than against any specific action, the numbers are ever more worthless as an indicator of support for any position on the merits.

But, President Bush is the only person on the planet right now that will make a final decision. He will consult and be advised by many but he alone makes the final decision.

In the final evaluation, President Bush will get SOME of the glory (the Left will steal some of that undeservedly)-- but President Bush will get ALL the agony for every misstep and he gets to comfort the widows and orphans.

He is a patient man, but he will act when the time is right.

How much of each will be produced is yet to be determined.

[ez]

Considering that most of the people were protesting against America and against Bush rather than against any specific action, the numbers are ever more worthless as an indicator of support for any position on the merits.

Good point. In that light, Saddam, who reportedly took some heart from the spectacle, is even more deluded than the useful idiots who believe there is a groundswell of anti-war sentiment. As it should be.

FReegards...