|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Bush Calls Protests 'Irrelevant' national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Tuesday February 18, 2003 18:22 by RON FOURNIER
 Enraged, power-mad, smirking chimpanzee tells millions worldwide to get stuffed. The Associated Press President Bush declared on Tuesday that he wouldn't be deterred by global protests against war with Iraq, saying "I respectfully disagree" with those who doubt that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace. He said such a war remains a final resort, but "the risk of doing nothing is even a worse option as far as I'm concerned." Despite heavy opposition at the United Nations and protests around the world, the Bush administration appeared ready to push ahead this week for a new Security Council resolution that could open the way for war. Bush said that the size of the protests against a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq was irrelevant. "Size of protest, it's like deciding, 'Well I'm going to decide policy based up on a focus group.' The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security - in this case - security of the people." Millions of people around the world took to the streets over the weekend to protest such a war. "Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion," Bush said. "Some in the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace," he added. "I respectfully disagree." Bush said that Saddam Hussein continued to pose a very real threat to Americans and to the world. The president expressed confidence that the United States would come up with an acceptable aid package for Turkey, a close U.S. ally in the region who will play a vital role if there is military action against Baghdad. Bush said Turkey has "no better friend than the American government" and that Washington and Ankara were still working out details of an aid package. The U.S. military plans to use bases in Turkey both for aircraft and for ground forces in the event of an attack on Turkey's neighbor to the south. Bush indicated that he was running out of patience. Asked if he planned to set an ultimatum for Saddam's compliance, Bush suggested that would be pointless, like extending "another, another, another last chance." "He knows my feelings, and that is, he needs to disarm - completely and totally disarm. He's a fellow that likes to buy time and buy it through deception and delay." The global anti-war protests have put the White House on the defensive. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer began his daily briefing by reading newspaper clips about demonstrations against the staging of missiles in Germany in the early 1980s, and said, "This is not the first time there have been mass protests and in a previous instance America stood on principle ... and as a result the Berlin Wall came down." He also told reporters that former President Franklin Roosevelt overcame protests from isolationists to lead American into World War II. "Often the message of protesters is contradicted by history," he said |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (3 of 3)
Jump To Comment: 3 2 1This attempt by the pro-war lobby to compare the current situation
to that just before World War II is not entirely valid.
Why? Because the Iraqi military is not a threat to either it's neighbours
and even less so to the US. Their army is much less capable and smaller
than back in 1991, because of the thrashing they received.
On the other hand the US military machine is way beyond the strength and capability
of any other army or set of armies on the global. In the 1930s, the German
military was large, strong and capable. They were a threat because they clearly
preceived they were strong enough to beat anyone else and almost did.
The US military is now in that position today. The logic in the current US Admin,
is that we have this huge military, not matched even remotely by anyone else. So
why they heck don't we use it and dominate globally. And that's exactly what they
are about to do.
The Third Reich has simply moved westwards across the Atlantic.
See "The Liberals, The Realists and Bush the Liberator" in the related link
There is a big difference between being opposed to an aggressive war and "doing nothing" about the crimes being committed against the people of Iraq, and against the people of the world by the holders of weapons of mass destruction.
Working for peace is hard. It means talking to persons you do not trust and negotiating with persons whose views you oppose. It means working for justice for the poor and the marginalized, not just justice for the wealthy corporate or connected few.
Disarming Saddam Hussein is a good goal. So is disarming all nations of weapons of mass destruction. It will take a lot of work, so don't believe the war boosters who claim that the only choices are "war" or "nothing."
And what about Vietnam . . .
Or the fact that America only joined the allied forces of WW2 after Peral harbour made them realise they were not untouchable . . . and could be naive.
And what of the imminent doom facing communism prior to the berlin Wall coming down, Doom fortold by economics . . . not military presence.