| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq | ||
| Bush Implores Countries to Take a Stand | ||
| 2003-03-15 | ||
| On the eve of a summit aimed at rescuing his war resolution from probable U.N. failure, President Bush said Saturday that crucial days lie ahead for countries interested in promoting security and averting tragedy. Ok, lets clear this up at the start, you dont have a "summit" with the other three guys who agree with if you are going to come up with yet another resolution. If they were going to do that, they would have invited the French and Germans. They are only getting together to get their stories straight for public consumption next week. The UN game is over. "Governments are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are words alone — or convictions they're prepared to act upon," Bush said in his weekly radio address, war perhaps just days away. Current Rantburg "ballon watch" concensus is for before next Friday, and I concur. The address, focusing on a gruesomely detailed litany of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's reported atrocities, previewed Bush's one-day race across the Atlantic and back to huddle for a few hours with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. The three allies, at a Sunday summit pulled together in a rush, were seeking a way to break the impasse at the United Nations, where little support has emerged for the new resolution they introduced together authorizing force in Iraq. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, in an interview on Al-Jazeera, called the meeting in Portugal's Azores Islands "a last push to see if we can convince people to take on their responsibilities." Theres a jab in the eye towards the Franco-German bloc. I think the only open debate is whether or not to actually put the resolution to a vote or not. Bush had pledged to seek a vote in the U.N. Security Council, even without enough support, but the White House backpedaled this week in the face of intransigent opposition. We've been repeatedly told by the other nations that its a waste of effort in light of the French veto-under-all-circumstances pledge. Administration officials said any compromise the leaders devise would almost certainly provide a brief extension of the second resolution's March 17 deadline for Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction. U.S. and foreign diplomats said, however, another alternative was more likely: Blair, embattled at home over his war stance and needing political cover from his American ally, would ask Bush and Aznar to withdraw the resolution rather than face certain defeat. If so, the White House would shift almost immediately to a war footing. The speech, which could come as early as Monday, is expected to serve as a final ultimatum for Saddam before a military attack, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Keep your TV remote close at hand, President Bush is expected to make an announcement on Sunday about noon. Could be interesting.... "Not acting to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction is neither politically nor morally acceptable," said Aznar, who supports an attack on Iraq but has not committed troops. Spain,like most continental european countries, doesn't really have any armed forces to begin with. Blair, who has sent 40,000 British troops to join hundreds of thousands of Americans in the Persian Gulf, welcomed both the summit and a new U.S. push for Middle East peace that Bush announced on Friday. Even as the last-ditch diplomacy continued, tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators prepared for a weekend march on the White House and other cities around the world. Accomplishing nothing, signifying even less. Bush, meanwhile, urged radio listeners and wavering Security Council members to "never lose sight of the basic facts about the regime of Baghdad." Calling Saddam a "reckless dictator," Bush said: "We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence. We have seen far too many instances in the past decade — from Bosnia, to Rwanda, to Kosovo — where the failure of the Security Council to act decisively has led to tragedy," Bush said. "And we must recognize that some threats are so grave — and their potential consequences so terrible — that they must be removed, even if it requires military force." How's that for a clear indication of how the old man is thinking. However, with both sides showing little give, administration officials acknowledged there was little chance of changing opponents' minds during a mid-Atlantic meeting of like-minded leaders. Ok, one more time, President Bush is not flying to the Azores to try to change the minds of the only guys who agree with him. This is partially for Mr. Tony Blair, to consider whether or not to force the rest of the security council to actually vote, or to let them slide. It's also to get everyone on 'our side' together and ensure that they are reading from the same hymnal before the start of action. There wont be any action prior to noon on sunday ( that we start anyway, saddam may make things happen on his own.) so, rest up today, get your grocery shopping done, take a nap, clean your browser cache,set your tivo's on "stun", because my guess is that next week, its showtime. French President Jacques Chirac told Blair by telephone "he would not accept an ultimatum to Saddam," Blair's spokesman said. Russia rejected a British compromise plan that would give Iraq a short deadline and specific conditions to prove it had disarmed. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger called the weekend effort to find a peaceful solution "wonderful and welcomed," while his boss, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, repeated his country's position that U.N. weapons inspections are enough to contain Iraq. For its part, the White House rejected as "a nonstarter" the latest bid for a diplomatic compromise at the United Nations, a plan from Chile to give Iraq a three-week deadline to comply with a set of new conditions. And a new report filed with the U.N. by weapons inspector Hans Blix, which a senior U.S. official said envisioned stretching out inspections for months, was sharply at odds with the Bush administration's stated timeframe.
| ||
| Posted by:Frank Martin |
| #8 The French must pay a heavy price for the duplicities. If not, others will be emboldened to do the same. All military cooperation with them must be reduced to very low-level contact. No federal contracts or subcontracts. And certainly NOT any post-war reconstruction involvement. The French truly believe they're going to get away with their shit without any real harm. That better not be the case. Ordinary Americans aren't going to forget their behavior...and the US government better not either. The French need a lot of pushback, and we should give it to them. They're such pussies they'll fold at the slightest touch... |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-03-16 00:41:36 |
| #7 To pull a Kosovo in Iraq means traversing the Northern No Fly Zone. Good luck... |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-03-15 23:36:27 |
| #6 The French are sane enough not to get in the middle of "Shock & Awe". Their objective is geopolitical, not Sammy. The sad fact is they know better than we how bad he is (seeing they sold him most everything). |
| Posted by: john 2003-03-15 20:22:19 |
| #5 The Russians have a precedent of doing this, remember Kosovo? Wouldn't be surprised if they tried a stunt like that again. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-15 19:03:41 |
| #4 The only wildcard I can see is the French deciding to intervene to protect the Iraqis directly by landing "peacekeeping forces" directly into Iraq. at this point Chirac is writing checks his ass cant cash, I dont put anything beyond him. By taking down Iraq, The president is driving a stake through the heart of the French economy, and Chirac knows it. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 2003-03-15 14:45:18 |
| #3 Frankly, I think it is too dangerous to give Saddam 3 days notice. All that does is give him 3 days to pre-emptively attack our troops and Isreal with chem-bio weapons and begin laying waste to his own country. I think prior notice would be foolhardy. JMHO |
| Posted by: mcat 2003-03-15 13:42:55 |
| #2 So, Chiraq won't accept an ultimatum to Saddam, but he might have to accept an ultimatum, and frankly, I really wonder how much of a "good friend" he is to Chiraq. He just might want him to go down and decide against shredding certain documents. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-15 13:34:28 |
| #1 The only wildcard I can see is the French deciding to intervene to protect the Iraqis directly by landing "peacekeeping forces" directly into Iraq. at this point Chirac is writing checks his ass cant cash, I dont put anything beyond him. By taking down Iraq, The president is driving a stake through the heart of the French economy, and Chirac knows it. |
| Posted by: Frank Martin 3/15/2003 2:45:18 PM |