Bits and pieces from yesterday’s address to the U.N. by President Bush:
The Taliban was a sponsor and servant of terrorism. When confronted, that regime chose defiance, and that regime is no more.
- News 24, South Africa: Taliban Takes Control
- Financial Times, UK: Taliban’s shoots start to sprout from roots that the US failed to eradicate
- Pak Tribune, Pakistan: Afghan Govt helpless against Taliban activities
The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder, and refused to account for them when confronted by the world. The Security Council was right to be alarmed. The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free, and today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country.
Do I even need to link to anything? We’ve found no evidence of nuclear or biological weapons. The rationale for war has shifted over the months from “Saddam has WMDs” to “Saddam’s making WMDs” to “Saddam was planning to make WMDs” to “We’re liberating the people of Iraq (because all our other justifications haven’t panned out [and oh yeah, just ignore the fact that the country’s in worse shape than when it started])”. And yet Bush still hauls out that excuse for his actions. It’s almost laughable, except for what has been done in the name of those nonexistant WMDs.
The Iraqi people are meeting hardships and challenges, like every nation that has set out on the path of democracy.
Hardships and challenges that include losing valuable contracts to rebuild their own nation to American Bush-backed companies that charge ludicrously inflated prices.
Across the Middle East, people are safer because an unstable aggressor has been removed from power. Across the world, nations are more secure because an ally of terror has fallen.
That “unstable aggressor” may be removed from power, but do we know where he is? Or where Osama bin Laden, the man that we believe was actually behind the 9-11 attacks is? They’re both loose, and while the U.S. occupies Iraq, more and more people in the middle east see us as an occupying force creating a police state. In other words, the bad guys. I certainly don’t feel any safer now knowing that every day more and more people, sick of what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, may be searching out other people loyal to Saddam or bin Laden and planning ways to take their revenge on the U.S.
Our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq were supported by many governments, and America is grateful to each one.
Of course, many of those governments were as bad as or worse than Iraq. Such fine company we keep.
Our international coalition in Iraq is meeting it responsibilities. We are conducting precision raids against terrorists and holdouts of the former regime.
And they’re conducting less-precise, but equally effective, raids against U.S. and U.N. forces in Iraq.
Our coalition has made sure that Iraq’s former dictator will never again use weapons of mass destruction.
Considering that he’s on the loose and we don’t know where he is, I’d almost expect that he’d be more likely to find WMDs now if he is free to travel around and make good contacts on the black market than when he was busy holding the reins on a country that wasn’t able to work on a WMD program due to international supervision.
We’re training Iraqi police and border guards and a new army, so the Iraqi people can assume full responsibility for their own security.
Of course, it’ll be easier for them to do their jobs if we’d stop accidentally shooting them.
The old regime built palaces while letting schools decay, so we are rebuilding more than a thousand schools. The old regime starved hospitals of resources, so we have helped to supply and reopen hospitals across Iraq. The old regime built up armies and weapons, while allowing the nation’s infrastructure to crumble, so we are rehabilitating power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges and airports.
Now wouldn’t it be nice if someone would flip this around and do the same for the U.S.?
That’s enough. I’m only about halfway through his address, but something tells me it doesn’t get any better from there, and I’ve got to get ready for work. You get the point, I’m sure.
The King is a fink.
(via Kos)
It wasn’t meant to be dissected, it’s aimed towards Fox news and the like so later on bush can complain that i offered the UN and they turned us down…. and it’s all their fault and what not. Chiraq really bashed the US left right center i thought.
Nice post, Michael. KO is right, though. The speech wasn’t aimed at the UN delegates but at Fox News, CNN, etc. It’s embarassing that Bush used the UN as his stooge for this “event”.
Even though it was just a stage for more spouting of things that have already been disproved, it is important to keep pointing out the lies and misdirection. If we don’t they become accepted as fact. Just look at the run up to the war for evidence of that.
Which country is worse then Saddams Iraq? I can think of three; Iran, North Korea, And China. But none of those were involved in the coalition.
There’s no doubt Saddam had WMD. He used them on Iranians and Kurds. A scarcity of evidence only means Saddam was busy during the months between Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom.
If you check this weeks tote UN reps are the target of choice in Baghdad these days. Iraqis must have some grudge against the rest of the world and it must be a big one. Big enough to take their minds off shooting at Americans. You would think they were pissed off about something that the UN did, but that doesn’t make sense. Wasn’t it the UN that opposed the ousting of Hussein?
Ya I can’t figure it out.
As far as Haliburton and American companies getting fat profits. Show me a prospectus. Logic says if your workers are dodging bullets and continuosly threatened with being blown up, hazard pay and transportation costs are going to eat away at any profit. Patching pipelines is the worst job you can have in the best of locals, add the occasional mad mullah that wants to off an infidel or scorching heat and it is aweful. They earn their money.
J… While I don’t disagree on several of your points.
You seem to have missed the big over all picture
I’ll try to address them one by one,
1. Yes they ARE worse, and far more dangerous, so tell me again why we are in Iraq?
2. Had is the key word here, HAD… as in used to have. The part that bothers me is our fearless leader standing up and saying all those things and I could link the qoutes but we’ve all see and heard them a thousand times.
“ We know where they are” “He has 50 tons of cemical whepeons” “He was thousands of rockets” “their aimed at the US” “ He can launch a strike in 45 minutes”
Clearly the facts have shown that those statements were incorrect.
Did he knowing lie? Was he mislead by his advisors? Was his intel bad?
My point is something, somewhere went wrong? How could we be so wrong? But Mr president won’t talk about it. Worse he thinks everything is OK?
Along the way we went from.
He has WMD to He’s building WMD to he’s trying to build WMD to, He’s planning on building WMD. Foe example:
A. I am a millionare
B. I’m working on becoming a millionare
C. And I’m planning on becoming a millionare
Are three completely different statements, Under Mr Bush’s logic, even though I fall under C. I need to pay the taxes now!
We invaded a country why? Because he was planning to build WMD?
Sorry wrong answer.
And 3.
Again you dance around the issue, Yes, Yes Yes, the work sucks ! Yes the employees are in danger! Yes they earn every penny they make.
The question is WHY
WHY did Haliburton get the contract with out bidding for it.
A BILLION doller contract goes to the Vice presidents company without an open bid.
(don’t you see a tiny little conflict of interest here?)
The VP has an energy meeting to plan the future of this nations energy usage and supplies. What did they talk about?
“sorry can’t say….national security”
Who was at the meeting?
“sorry can’t say….national security”
What plans were made.
“sorry can’t say….national security”
A Judge ORDERED them to release the paper work.
“sorry can’t….national security”
If I hear “sorry can’t say….national security” one more time !!!
The failure of the President and Vice President is they fail to understand they work for US (the people) and they have to answer to US. Failure to answer OUR questions will result in US voting them both out of office. If they even make it that far.
Clinton screwed an intern and was impeached for it.
Bush is screwing the nation!
To me ….His ass should have been booted out already.
J —
Tim already covered the majority of what my reply was going to be (great minds think alike…and so do ours).
Regarding which coalition country is worse than Iraq, I’d suggest you take a look at the link I posted in that paragraph to a post I made a while back looking at the coalition members’ human rights records. For example, Uzbekistan: