Posted on 01/18/2005 1:10:57 PM PST by quidnunc
George W. Bush is the center of attention this week, and properly so. On Monday, the networks each showcased an exclusive interview with the president done in the White House Library. Flicking from ABC to CBS to NBC it seemed possible to catch them all, and not surprising that all pondered similar questions. They bore on the tactical question of Iraq (How are we doing?) and the strategic implications of Iraq (Where else are we likely to do the same thing?). One questioner was pretty blunt: Since Iraq was not in fact deploying weapons of mass destruction, what reason do you have, Mr. President, to suppose that the world will believe you if in the future you make such charges intending preemptive action?
Mr. Bush said that he had relied on the same intelligence which had been accepted by the United Nations (and by France and Germany); that Saddam had the capacity to manufacture WMD’s, and a disposition to use such weapons; and that he would not exclude “any” option in the future, should the welfare of the United States require it.
His presence was remarkably serene, handling barb after barb. One had the impression that he had thought through the answers to the questions that would be raised, and was at peace with the conclusions he had arrived at.
Coincidentally, the February issue of Commentary magazine carries an extended essay by Norman Podhoretz, which is a sequel to his major essay of last fall proclaiming World War IV. The new article is entitled, “The War Against World War IV.”
Podhoretz’s assumption is that the radical-Islamist offensive on so many fronts, religious and secular, is most usefully thought of as a war, and that historical logic dubs it World War IV. …
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319996/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1319275/posts
What he should have said is that not only won't he exclude any future action to protect the United States from potential harm but the real lesson to learn here is that when the United States asks you to prove to their satisfaction that you don't pose a threat, it isn't joking around.
If Saddam didn't have WMD (and I'm still putting an "if" in there), then he was the fool for pretending like he did.
"If Saddam didn't have WMD (and I'm still putting an "if" in there), then he was the fool for pretending like he did."
And you know that little pervert with the bad hair in Pyongyang is paying attention.
Especially since Bush has no qualms about using nukes on the bunkers the little qweeb hides in.
WW4 What happened to world war 3?
As this idea goes, WWIII was the Cold War.
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.