Bush, The God of War, speaks ... http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030101/D7O9I4RG1.html Bush: Attack by Iraq Would Hurt Economy Jan 1, 12:16 PM (ET) By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - President Bush is keeping an unwavering aim on Iraq while insisting North Korea's nuclear ambitions can be held in check diplomatically and without resort to military force. Iraq's Saddam Hussein poses the greater immediate danger because an attack by him, either alone or in concert with terrorist allies, "would cripple our economy," Bush said Tuesday. After several days of holiday seclusion at his 1,600-acre Texas ranch, Bush emerged to defend his policy of treating Saddam as a looming threat while using long-term international diplomacy to isolate and pressure North Korea's Kim Jong Il. Since North Korea is actually believed to already possess one or two nuclear weapons and is threatening to produce additional weapons-grade material, Bush is facing increasing criticism that his priorities are reversed. Fielding questions outside a Crawford cafe, Bush justified his choices by pointing to differences between the two situations. While North Korea only recently broke its 1994 pledge to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Saddam "has defied the international community" for 11 years, the president said. Additionally, Bush said Iraq was believed to be "close to having a nuclear weapon" in the 1990s, though he acknowledged the United States does not know whether Saddam currently possesses such technology. While making a fresh case against Saddam, the president did not mention the nuclear weapons already believed to be in the North Korean arsenal. Nor did he note that North Korean leaders could produce several more nuclear bombs in a matter of months if they carry out their threat to restart their nuclear program. "This is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown," Bush said of the North Korean situation. By contrast, when asked whether the high cost of war with Iraq would cripple the U.S. economy, Bush tersely replied: "An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy." Some well-placed observers contend North Korea is the greater threat. Warren Christopher, a secretary of state in the Clinton administration, urged Bush in a New York Times op-ed piece to "step back from his fixation on attacking Iraq" to reassess U.S. priorities. "I had made the case, and will continue to make the case, that Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the security of the American people," Bush said. He suggested the risks of attack from Saddam outweighed the potential costs of war. "This economy cannot afford to stand an attack," he said, even as his budget team was predicting war with Iraq would cost at least $50 billion. It marked the first time Bush has used potential damage to the U.S. economy as justification for military action. He laid out the new argument against the backdrop of tens of thousands of U.S. troops massing near Iraq's borders. Military officials in Washington on Tuesday said an infantry division from Georgia has been ordered to the Persian Gulf region. All told, between 15,000 and 17,000 soldiers from the division will go, officials said. Also, the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier will stay in the Pacific Ocean and Arabian Gulf indefinitely instead of returning to its home port in Everett, Wash., next month as planned, the Navy said. Bush suggested military action was not being contemplated against nuclear-armed North Korea. "All options, of course, are always on the table for any president, but by working with (U.S. allies) we can resolve this," he said. Bush has pledged to disarm Saddam, with force if necessary, unless Iraq disarms voluntarily. "Thus far, it appears that, at first look, that Saddam Hussein hasn't heard the message," Bush said. U.N. weapons inspectors have not reported finding any weapons of mass destruction after several weeks of work, but U.S. officials say Saddam's arsenal is under wraps and hidden from view. They are pushing the United Nations to bolster its inspection methods. Some U.S. allies say they fear Bush is too eager for war. Sensitive to the criticism, Bush bristled at the suggestion that war was inevitable. "You said we're headed to war in Iraq. I don't know why you say that," Bush told reporters. "I'm the person who gets to decide, not you. And I hope this can be done peacefully." Copyright 2002 Associated Press. All right reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
He could have summed it up by just saying that another terrorist attack, especially one on US Soil, would cripple the economy.
Well, I'm glad it would just hurt the economy and not kill people. The last line is disturbing. I can't think of a previous president that would have phrased it that way. Everyone else would have said something like, "It's a terrible burden and the final decision will be carefully thought out and explained after we weigh all the alternatives." "I'm the person who gets to decide, not you," sounds incredibly juvenile. It's as if he's the student council president and is arguing over who gets to pick the prom theme.
i agree...it sounds bad, particularly in print when we don't have the context...we can't see a smile on his face or on that of the person he was addressing...or whatever....but i imagine it gets awfully tiresome hearing the press tell you what you're going to do time in and time out before you do it. remember, according to the press we've already unilaterally invaded without speaking to the UN first...with no weapons inspectors at all. as for the economy issue...did you read the article?? he was addressing a question about how a war in iraq would affect the US economy...he replied by saying inaction may be more costly.
There's no solid correlation with religious terrorists and Saddam. But it's something Bush is trying hard to sell to the American people.
He might have meant all of the terrorist attacks in America. He probably is right about it too. How is Iraq related to terrorist attacks against us? I thought he was at odds with Osama Bin Laden.
ofcourse a war wil be bad for economy. even in holland the economy is les good, part of the reason for that is the possibility of war. the euopean bank has stated that a war is verry bad for the economy, and that is in Europe. so in the usa it wil probeble be even owrse. Bush wants war. i don't believe that bin laden and Saddam are working togheter, they both dislike bush. but i don't think they are making plans togheter
No matter what the context of the question, when our friends around the world (and I'm thinking of our European friends in particular, arno_ed ) read statements like this from our President the reaction is generally one of dismay. Unfortunately, I don't think it's something Bush is losing sleep over. We seem to be on the road to War with Iraq... the devil with the details. Where's Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you need them?
The attack by Iraq doesn't really have to be on US soil to hurt the US economy (and the world economy). If Iraq possessed WMD and used said WMD on the regional oil fields, the access to that oil would be interrupted and oil prices would temporarily sky rocket. This would almost certainly guarantee that the US economy would go back into recession. Such an act would more likely be classified as an act of war, versus a terrorist act. Our own intelligence agency has stated that Iraq will use the WMD threat as a deterence to war and would only use its WMD if invaded.
I know, tongue-in-cheek, but geez too true! I would love to know what the secret agenda is as it pertains to Iraq. Gotta be more than oil. As for Bush's last statement, we might not get to decide....but we will decide come '04. He'll be just like his daddy (not re-elected).
From an economic standpoint having a US control over one of the top 3 oil reserves in the world is worth much more than the 40 or 50 billion dollars that the war is going to cost. If that is the reasoning, commodity oil independence, then it is understandable, as is making Afghanistan the land through which an oil pipeline goes from the newly leased by Exxon-Mobil/Chevron-Texaco and others central Caspian Sea Oil reserves through Pakistan to the sea to be transported. But don't give me this they just hate us B.S. and that little Puny Iraq is some international threat. We destroyed that country in 1991 and blew them back to the stone age. They have never even threatened the United States, sent a missle at the US or anything of that nature. And I'm sure they are happy about sending a dossier of all of their weapons and the locations of the weapons to a country about to invade them. If Oil and further financial independance is the issue, then let it be known and I will understand, but don't hide it behind simple "they hate us" rhetoric.
I agree, but the American people wouldn't support the war if Bush actually admitted it was about oil. That's why he's always talking nonsense about freedom for the Iraqui people even though we prop up the Saudis and "negotiate" with the North Koreans. It's a big charade IMHO.
