This reminds me of that Oscar O. article telling Franchise to pass more and to become a better team leader.... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html March 10, 2003 <font size=5>Bush Sr warning over unilateral action</font> From Roland Watson in Washington THE first President Bush has told his son that hopes of peace in the Middle East would be ruined if a war with Iraq were not backed by international unity. Drawing on his own experiences before and after the 1991 Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr said that the brief flowering of hope for Arab-Israeli relations a decade ago would never have happened if America had ignored the will of the United Nations. He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising his son to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany. “You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,” he said. The former President’s comments reflect unease among the Bush family and its entourage at the way that George W. Bush is ignoring international opinion and overriding the institutions that his father sought to uphold. Mr Bush Sr is a former US Ambassador to the UN and comes from a family steeped in multi-lateralist traditions. Although not addressed to his son in person, the message, in a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts, was unmistakeable. Mr Bush Sr even came close to conceding that opponents of his son’s case against President Saddam Hussein, who he himself is on record as loathing, have legitimate cause for concern. He said that the key question of how many weapons of mass destruction Iraq held “could be debated”. The case against Saddam was “less clear” than in 1991, when Mr Bush Sr led an international coalition to expel invading Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Objectives were “a little fuzzier today”, he added. After the Gulf War, Mr Bush Sr steered Israel and its Arab neighbours to the Madrid conference, a stepping stone to the historic Israeli-Palestinian Oslo accords, in much the same way that the present President has talked about the removal of Saddam as opening the way to a wider peace in the region. In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.” Also drawing on the lessons of 1991, he said that it was imperative to mend fences with allies immediately, rather than waiting until after a war. He had been infuriated with the decision of King Hussein of Jordan to side with Saddam rather than the US, but while criticising the Jordanian leader in public and freezing $41 million in US aid, he also passed word to King Hussein that he understood his domestic tensions. Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany. There are, however, signs that Mr Bush Sr’s message may be getting through. Father and son talk regularly and it was, in part, pressure from Mr Bush Sr’s foreign policy coterie, that helped to persuade the President to go to the UN last September.
That's pretty powerful stuff coming from Bush Sr. I hope GWB has the guts to take a second look at what he's doing.
Just the words of another anti-Republican peacenik Bush-hater who probably knows about as much about the situation as treeman or glynch... I predict that this will have absolutely no effect on those so far up the knee-jerk pro-Bush trail that they never look anyway but forward, and only regard opinion contrary to theirs as empty words of those without the vision, courage, clarity, sanity, or intelligence that they have. The fact that our administration has lied about evidence, but still wants us to go ahead based on their word didn't...the fact that we are simultaneousy saying that we are willing to go ahead without UN approval to, get this, back up UN sanctions had no effect...the fact that we will go to war over some sanctions while ignoring others had no effect...the fact that we have called the UN 'irrelevent", and are about to engage in "pre-emptive self-defense" which the UN defintion of justifiable actions clearly classifies as 'aggression', and we should know, we basically wrote the damn thing, had little effect...the fact that other people who might just know a little bit about the situation over there, such as Schwarzkopf (sp?), Carter and most of the rest of the region including such people who have supported us in the past as Saudi Arabia all say we are forcing the issue at incredible cost with little evident need had no effect...the fact that virtually the entire world, most of whom have little love for Hussein, still say we are clearly not justified in doing what we say we are going to do has made barely a ripple...so I predict that, assuming this article is genuine, it, too, will be dismissed...I am just a little intellectually curious as to how...
Yeah, your words are like just any other anti-Republican peacenik Bush-hater. Recent opinions of Bush Sr. and Clinton support action on Saddam. But they disagree, like many other Americans, with the way Dubya has been handling the issue diplomatically. Of course, there are many who would disregard the facts placed on the table and rattle off their diatribes of peace at any cost.
Aside from pointing out my glaring omission of the dreaded rolleyes which does, you are correct in observing, play a prominent role in virtually every knee-jerk pro-the-decision-to-go-to-war-given-the-current-circumstances dismissal of any and all occurences/points against same, I have no idea what your initial line meant...I know you got that I was making a parody of the response that someone who speaks out against the war usually gets, but in this case making the ridiculousness of that broad brush applying to Bush Sr. quite evident, so I am at a loss as to what you were trying to say there... And I really don't see how rattling off the same old 'facts' as your side in this issue sees things addresses the actual fact that Bush Sr. is in agreement with many of the Bush critics, in here and elsewhere, on many of the issues concerning the war...criticism which Bush supporters on autopilot have dismissed as I said...Is that what you're going to do? Act like it's not on topic? I am somewhat dissapointed...I'll bet that others can come up with something more imaginative, if no more substantive...
MacBeth, Could be irrelevant with this other article from the same source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605557,00.html
Cohen, Interesting article but not real relevant in this thread. You didn't really suceed in softening the impact of Bush Senior's comments about Bush Junior's policies..
So Bush Sr. warns over 'unilateral' action. There's another issue that may swing the Security Council votes nec. to pass a new resolution so war would not be 'unilateral'. In your mind, the second issue is not relevant. It may not have 'succeeded' in your mind glynch, but I find that rather embarrassing for you.
wait...in all seriousness now...political feelings aside....did Hans Blix really hide something? that's like aiding and abetting a felon in these circumstances. The UN sends in inspectors to find the weapons...the chief inspector helps hide things from the UN participants because of his own concerns. If that's true...that's just awful. Doesn't do much to aid the credibility of the United Nations, either.
Then why are we using resolutions passed by Student Council as a basis to send 300,000 US troops to war?
Its existence was only disclosed in a declassified 173-page document circulated by the inspectors at the end of the meeting — an apparent attempt by Dr Blix to hide the revelation to avoid triggering a war. I think one needs to use Clintonese to get the correct definition of the word, hide, before reading the above passage.
In a speech most of you have probably heard GWB uttered this statement as an arguement for going to war against Iraq. GWB, "This is the man (Saddam) that tried to kill my father" For George Sr. to make a public statement against acting unilaterally there must be serious concerns amongst the old guard that we are destroying aliances built over decades in the course of months. If George Sr. who obviously despises Saddam can forget personal grudges for the sake of world diplomacy, GWB certainly should do the same. There of course is more to this military action than personal grudges, but the idea of being either with us or against us must stop immediately.
i'm not sure if you understand what the US and UK are alleging here. Blix was to present the highlights of his report last Friday...here we have a weapons program that was never previously disclosed, as I understand it. A weapons program that lends itself to the support of terrorism, specficially. And Blix NEVER mentions it in his speech...not once. This is the exact kind of thing that he was over there looking for...undisclosed weapons programs. If you've ever read govt documents and technical reportsbefore, you understand how easy it is to bury little facts inside of it...this should have been among the top items...and certainly deserved mention in his speech.
Sorry, but a serious question here. Is it just vaguely possible that GWB has some deeply held, kind of quiet grudge against his own father? Wonder what it was like for him growing up, sort of in Dad's shadow and even his brother JEB's shadow a little. Sorry for the possible descent into psychobabble, but it's kind of important, especially if anything in the report above is factual.
Oh no! A drone!! On Page 173 of the report! Blix is a terrorist hiding this weapon on page 173. Since he isn't wit us he's agin us! That's it now I realize that Iraq is an immediate danger to me that cannot be contained by inspectors, sanctions or anything short of war. The Attaclk of the Killer Drones. Worse than a Speilberg movie in its fiendishness. Get out the duct tape while we still can. This is really weak guys. 1) I know a "drone" sounds scary. A plane without a pilot. 2) Is it a prohibitted weapon? 3) As Bush and the pro-war crowd have reminded us even a crop dusting Cesna can spray chemicals. 4) Is it possible Blix and the inspectors did not view the "drone" as a real deal breaker that necessitates immediate premptory war.. I think the whole drone story is clutching at straws and an attempt to attack Blix who at this point has much more credibility thatn Bush or Powell.
