Posted on 03/07/2003 6:10:10 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 03/07/2003 6:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
(CBS) President Bush set the stage Thursday night for what could be the final act in the diplomatic drama over Iraq, telling the White House press corps that, if necessary, he will wage war with or without United Nations approval. Continues
===============================================================
"My job is to protect America." Any questions?
If I had to think of one *sum-up* sentence for tonight's East Room event, I'd say this was a 'I'm-Not-Going-To-Let-You-Off-The-Hook' news conference.
To France, Germany and Russia, who were hoping their show of defiance would scare the U.S. and Britain away from proceeding with a final Security Council vote, the President had a message: I'm not going to let you off the hook. He vowed to force the issue, win or lose, to a head.
"No matter what the whip count," Bush said, "we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein...It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."
To Bush, what matters most aren't final vote tallies -- but right or wrong. This isn't a popularity contest; his purpose tonight was not to win votes or break deadlocks at the U.N. It's a question of moral leadership -- a question of taking a principled stand, popular or not. The time for hemming and hawing is over. Time to choice sides: Are you with us, or with the terrorists?
Hints the resolution would be pulled in the face of certain defeat served an evident purpose, to wit: Smoking out the French, Russians and Germans. They've made their bed, now let 'em sleep in it. Know this, however: Bush won't forget who friends and enemies were when it mattered.
To the U.N. on the eve of another Blix report, the President's message was the same: I'm not going to let you off the hook.
"This," he said, "is not only an important moment for the security of our nation, I believe it's an important moment for the Security Council itself."
He left no doubt as to why: "This issue has been before the Security Council -- the issue of disarmament of Iraq -- for 12 long years. And the fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything? When the Security Council speaks, will the words have merit and weight?"
And if the U.N. balks?
"When it comes to our security, if we need to act, we will act, and we don't need United Nations approval to do so."
Any questions?
And, finally, to the Butcher-of-Baghdad, the President's warning was emphatic: I'm not going to let you off the hook. He reminded the dictator the stark, yet clear cut, choice before him: You will either disarm voluntarily, and now, or a U.S.-led coalition will do it for you.
Saddam's actions -- his ongoing weapons concealment, intimidation of scientists, planting of bugs -- amount to nothing more than more of the same.
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming," said Bush. "These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
The President -- poised, somber, yet firm and resolute -- left no doubt Saddam's days are numbered, boldly reaffirming what it's all about, the central nature of the mission.
"My job," he noted, "is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do...I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do."
To the long-suffering people of Iraq, his message was simple: Help is on the way.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
I disagree. The day of the vote is the day WE decide that the UN is going the way of the League of Nations. A minor but important distiction.
... something we could, and shoud have done long, long ago IMHO ... and something we can do at any time.
Fregards.
Seconded. Methinks, in fact, that was the idea, all along ;^)
It wasn't a speech, it was a news conference and not a slick 'performance', but spoken from the man's humble heart!
As to the rest of you with the border comments, can you for a moment put your complaints aside and support this man? The burden he is bearing is incredible. I live on the border and next door to a border guard and I can tell you that the amount of effort to strengthen this border has been enormous compared to what it was pre 9/11 - it didn't get porous overnight and it is going to take time and concerted forces to fix it, but can't you quit griping at this man that he hasn't fixed everything that needs fixing?
PREDICTION : If the UN survives, look for many to say that the whole debacle reflects badly on the SC and the veto...And that the best way to make the UN "more efficient" is to abolish both. We know from the Millennium Summit press releases that there's an alliance between the EU and the Third World countries to accomplish this "reform" by no later than 2008. If the entire UN GA announces that it regards the SC as abolished, and that it will no longer take notice of the SC or the veto, how could any nation on the SC stop them? The SC and the veto would be de facto abolished, even over protests from the SC members . And bear in mind that some SC members themselves want to see the UN become a 'one nation, one vote' global democracy with all edicts , treaties, protocols etc passed by it legally binding and enforceable on all member states.
If this "reform" is ever accomplished : Pray we do NOT have a WJC in the WH.
Are you guys trying to get yourselves banned from the White House like Tom Tancredo did? ;^)
Which is only one way to address the problem. And in my view, the least desirable, not to mention the most expensive option.
It might work, but if you really want the tide to be stemmed, it has to be done by the Mexican government. They won't do it because we make them pay no price. And they use it as "steam control" to keep their useless political sysytem afloat.
A quick withdrawal of all benefits to their government unless they stop the nonsense is a better first approach, IMO.
Edited. Does that mean all Presidents?
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.