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.
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.
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.
What if that person was already holding your family hostage?
Good post. Regarding the above, it appears that the fellow travelers are guilty of believing their own press clippings.
FReegards...
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,
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.
you're joking, right?
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.
Leni
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.
Either that, or it's something in their Koolaid.
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...
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.