|
Bush
State of the Union Speech - No New Evidence to Support the Reason
for War Now
By D. LINDLEY YOUNG
January 29, 2003
WASHINGTON, D.C.
(1/29) -
(Contains Full text of speech.) The much anticipated
2003 Bush State of the Union speech - given January 28, 2003 - was among one
of the longest in US history - lasting about one hour. Noting we are
in a "time of consequence," and that "decisive days lie ahead," Bush
covered a broad list of topics including a $674 billion tax
cut, elimination of the double tax on dividends, MediCare
reform, the US drug problem, hydro-electric cars, the HIV problem in
Africa, and Bush presented his case for the war on Iraq - at least
some of it.
According to polls after the
speech, the primary concern on those who watched the speech was the war on Iraq by
2 to 1. The reaction has been mixed along party lines. On one
side, there are those that contend Bush made the case for the war
on Iraq - with a list of Hussein atrocities, the oppression of the Iraqi
people, Iraq's failure to account for or show that five types of WMD,
allegedly possessed by Iraq had been destroyed, and his "imagine"
the 9/11 bombers with WMD provided by Hussein. Bush asserted America will not trust one
of the world's most dangerous men with some of the world's most
destructive weapons. Bush
argued the world cannot afford to wait until the threat from Iraq is
plainly imminent. Terrorists and tyrants who have announced their intentions,
will not "politely [put] us on notice
before they strike?"
On the other - Bush did not present any "compelling" evidence, that
Iraq is now an "imminent" threat. Although Bush called Iraq a
"serious and mounting threat" and alluded to Iraq ties to terrorism
and some intelligence reports on those ties, he provided no new
evidence on an issue carefully scrutinized for "evidence." Bush
stated there was "intelligence" evidence of ties between al-Queada
and Iraq but did not present that evidence during his speech. According to Bush,
Secretary of State Colin Powell will address the U.N. Security
Council next Wednesday and present evidence linking Iraq to terrorists and
will present evidence on
Baghdad's refusal to disarm.
In an apparent message to the UN and the world, Bush made clear our
future will not depend "upon the decisions of others" and that he
will "confine the designs of evil men." He urged that
America must act
"before dangers are upon us."
Bush did not discuss the consequences of an all but
unilateral war, the adverse impact of fewer allies in the war on terrorism,
the financial and human cost of the war, the humanitarian cost, post-war
stability, growing global protests to the war, or the potential
for the war on Iraq to create greater hatred for America and more American enemies.
There was no mention of the war in Afghanistan, nor the fact that that
war is still ongoing - with no clear claim of victory. He
failed to mention the Osama Bin Laden has not been caught There was no mention of multiple wars on multi fronts
- nor the
consequences of several wars in different nations at the same time.
He did not say that the US would not go from country to country in a
never-ending expansion of the war. In fact, Bush implied that Iraq
may be only the first in a series of necessary wars that American
will have to undertake.
Little was devoted to
assure Americans that the US will be made safer at home before
the war on Iraq starts. It would be difficult to gather from the
Bush speech that protecting the homeland in America
is a greater priority than a war abroad. Bush announced a new Terrorist
Threat Integration Center that will gather and analyze intelligence
from a wide array of agencies working at home and abroad. He also,
asked Congress for $6 billion over a decade to quickly make
available vaccines and treatments against bioweapons such as anthrax
and plague. These proposals and the Homeland
Security Act, etc. - should be given time to take effect -
before we broaden a war
which will create more enemies? Is the cart before the horse?
Bush was specific that
the US will lead a "coalition" (leaving out "of the willing") to
disarm Hussein if he does not disarm himself.
The
message was unequivocal that time is running out for Iraq. I appears
the bottom line is war sooner rather than later.
Bush asserts we are winning the war on
terrorism - we have them on the run. According to Bush, "One
by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American
justice." He went on, "Our war against terror is a contest of will
in which perseverance is power....Whatever the duration of this
struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the
triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set
the course of history."
Why not persevere and continue getting them one by one? We're
winning according to Bush.
We should
not alienate allies and create more enemies by going to war with
Iraq unless there is
compelling evidence that Iraq, or any nation, is directly participating
in activity which presents a clear and present danger to America.
What is the rush to a
military attack on Iraq - it is globally opposed by Russia, China,
France, Germany, Great Britain (without UN approval), and many others -
who are geographically closer to the threat.
Bush gets credit -
because he's the President - for protecting America from any
terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Let's put our resources into
continuing and expanding the defense of this country. The horse goes
before the cart. Bush should
persevere in the one by one battle, stay on course, not attack Iraq
now, let inspections work, and not proceed without UN support.
See
Full Text of George Bush 2003 State of the Union Speech
George Bush, President George Bush,
Governor George Bush, President George W. Bush, George
W. Bush, George Bush 41, George Bush
editor@themoderntribune.com
|