This speech told us a great deal about what's on George's agenda for the next few years - sadly it appears to be another four years of the same moronic tripe that we've had to deal with since 2000. (Sigh)
Among the more notable quotes and misquotes in the speech are these:
The first great commitment is to defend our security and spread freedom by building effective multinational and multilateral institutions and supporting effective multilateral action.Wow - that almost sounds like he has a vision that looks beyond his own navel. Oh wait - acting on that would necessitate changing the structure and mandate of the United Nations. An organization that the Republican Right Wing in the United States just happens to love to hate. (I won't even begin to address the fact the the US is in arrears on its dues among other things) Second, in order for any reformation of the United Nations to be meaningful, those countries with "Veto Powers" would have to give them up.
The objective of the U.N. and other institutions must be collective security, not endless debate. For the sake of peace, when those bodies promise serious consequences, serious consequences must follow.Ah yes, so does that mean that the world should raise sanctions against the United States for invading Iraq? Check whether the shoe fits it before you buy it, George.
My country is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations, and we're hoping that other nations will work with us to make those institutions more relevant and more effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.Let me interpret this little bit of bafflegab - basically, he's saying "Get in step with what I want to do, or I'll just decide that your opinion is irrelevant". Frankly, George, go to hell. If you can't grasp the notion that others can, and will, disagree with you for perfectly valid reasons, you need to get your expectations realigned - preferably with a more tangible reality than the nice cozy little fantasy of dusty little towns, and shootouts at sunset.
Your Prime Minister, McKenzie King, gave this answer: "We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting for the enemy to attack us. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada. Of course, we should protect our coasts and strengthen our ports and cities against attack," but the Prime Minister went on to say, "we must also go out and meet the enemy before he reaches our shores. We must defeat him before he attacks us, before our cities are laid to waste." McKenzie King was correct then, and we must always remember the wisdom of his words today.Okay, George, you want to purloin the words of one of Canada's Prime Ministers? The inference is obvious here - you are trying, once again to justify your hot-headed invasion of Iraq - an invasion that was not in any way, shape or form, related to "terrorism". Prime Minister King was speaking in response to a truly clear and present danger - Nazi Germany. Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.
I agree to a point with the notion of meeting the enemy on their ground. If the enemy is the terrorist, it is an enemy which does not fear rolling armies. Armies are meant to fight other armies - not little groups of 10-12 people in an apartment somewhere. Terrorists don't wear "uniforms" (in the classical military sense), they blend into the society around them. They are the shadows. If you want to confront them on their own turf, you must find them, and ferret them out - one cell at a time. As the recent fiasco called Fallujah has pointed out, it takes weeks to mass an army to invade an urban area - in that time, the very targets you want to take down slip out.
No George, your 'six-shooter' style of diplomacy doesn't cut it. If you want to fight terrorists, you must find them and remove them - surgically. Beefing up the military doesn't do much in these circumstances.
On a related note, I see that the United States is sending still more troops into Iraq. I think it speaks to how desperately GWB wants a "vote" to take place next month. He has to be able to stand up on the world stage and demonstrate that he is "bringing democracy" to Iraq, not merely occupying it by force.
I have to wonder what the long term goals are though. If one thing is painfully obvious in Iraq right now, it's that military might doesn't do much to keep the resistance down.
GWB appears to be trying to "reach out", but he really is only reaching out to those that already agree with him. There is no move on his part to take a more moderate stance on foreign policy, or a commitment to work with other nations constructively. He's basically sent out the signal that you either agree with him, and go along with his policy, or you are irrelevant to him. It's a sad statement indeed.
1 comment:
Hmmm... Interesting quotes.
But I think I would go one step further in interpreting his quotation of McKenzie King. Is Bush, perhaps, suggesting that instead of waiting on the defensive to be attacked, we should be the aggressor ourselves? Thank you Dubya! I think that is FABULOUS advice.
As I look around, I see a very aggressive country that is not heeding the direction of the UN, that attacks other nations without realistic justification (fabrications of evidence and excuses just don't cut it).
Perhaps we should be a strong nation, and like Bush suggests heed MacKenzie Kings words "We must defeat him before he attacks us, before our cities are laid to waste." and take action on this aggressor before we are attacked.
Yankee Go Home! We will prepare our armys to make an invasion shortly; after all, a country that shares the same landmass is quite a huge threat to the safety of our women and children.
But first, it's time for a donut and coffee at Tim Hortons.
Post a Comment