Posted on 09/12/2002 4:35:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
This was the speech we had been waiting for. After a summer during which he had been worryingly silent about his intentions on Iraq, George W. Bush yesterday left no doubt that, with or without United Nations support, America would shortly remove Saddam Hussein from power. In addressing the General Assembly, the President rightly reminded delegates that it was their authority that was at stake.
For more than a decade, he said, the Iraqi regime had defied Security Council resolutions, by repressing its own people, failing to account for prisoners taken from Kuwait and other countries after the invasion of the emirate in 1990, refusing to renounce all involvement in terrorism and continuing to seek weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The UN enjoyed a new lease of life when the Cold War ended. The fading of Soviet-American rivalry allowed the dispatch of a broad coalition, armed with a Security Council mandate, to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. In Namibia and Cambodia, the world body oversaw the transition, in the first instance to independence, in the second to the establishment of democracy after the horrors of Pol Pot. Yet there were also serious shortcomings.
The will to pin Saddam to his commitments gradually weakened. In Bosnia-Hercegovina, the UN was dismally unable to make a proper distinction between Serbian ethnic-cleansers and their Muslim victims. And the world body continued to have minimal influence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the first of the grave threats to peace listed yesterday by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, who addressed the General Assembly shortly before Mr Bush.
A year after the advent of the Age of Terror, the UN's standing as an instrument for peace looks much shakier than it did at the beginning of the 1990s. Yesterday, Mr Bush presented delegates with a stark alternative: either they confronted Saddam or they would become irrelevant. In his speech, Mr Annan acknowledged the "criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces" by September 11 and reminded the Security Council that it would have to "accept its responsibilities" if Iraq persisted in defying UN resolutions. But he warned America that, for military operations beyond the act of self-defence, there was "no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations".
Mr Bush promptly knocked the ball back into the UN's court. America would work with the Security Council to hold Iraq to account, but its determination should not be doubted: either UN resolutions would be enforced or action would be taken to remove Saddam from power. "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather," the President concluded. "We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well."
By confronting delegates with their own flaccidity over Iraq, Mr Bush has lent legitimacy to his cause. By dwelling on the brutality of the Baghdad regime, he has held out the hope of liberty to a region starved of it. The announcement that the US Central Command is moving from Florida to Qatar indicates that preparations for military action are under way. As the second stage of the war on terror at last unfolds, the rest of the world, from Iraq's neighbours to wobbly allies such as Germany, must decide where it stands.
Big BUMP!
This time, even I have to say that this was a VERY good speech.
I did not watch the speech, but read AP's transcript of it, as issued by the WH.
I would add to the above that the ball is squarely in Sadam's court. Specifically President Bush's references to:
" If the Iraqi regime wants peace then ......"
The conditions were fair, reasonable and absolutely unacceptable to Sadam.
War is pending. The speech was convincing and only the perpetually anti-America crowd and the assorted losers associated with them will speak out against the coming attack.
After all these years of Sadam, I expect our troops will be welcomed by throngs of Iraqi's, once the shooting stops.
One has to believe that a large percentage of Iraqi's recognize him for the madman that he is, but must remain silent, for fear of losing their testicles. Slowly and painfully, I might add.
As for me, I can tolerate some decension, it isthe hypocracy of party loyalists that is nausiating.
Have to agree with that although I come from the other end of the spectrum, believing that the Bush camp is too left wing for me.
I have to commend this administration for a couple specific actions though, as above I think this may be the most well written speech I've heard in quite some time, and I think that Ashcroft's stand on the right to bear arms was a refreshing shot in the arm.
Withdrawing from Kyoto was a nice move as well.
While I wish we'd find a way to move further toward a constitutional repbulic, I have to say that they've done better so far than I expected.
Refreshing and expected by the majority of the populace of the USA, but perhaps unnerving to the large cadre of impotent "leaders" of the UN and to the rest of the self-proclaimed "power brokers" scattered throughout the world.
Reality sucks for some....
Translation:
You are either for us or against us.
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.