Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Pres. George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (517)	3/10/2003 12:31:12 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 601

William F. Buckley, Jr. March 10, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030310.shtml POTUS with the press A postmortem on President Bush's press conference, conducted with a friend who has been intimately involved in the past, reminds us that what's important to every president is to get said what he wants to say. "Twist your answer to the question around to what you want to get out," my informant summarized his experiences with one president; and of course the device, one or another form of the non sequitur, is applicable in non-presidential affairs. In courtrooms there is a lawyer and a judge to require the witness to stick to the point. In debates, adversaries capitalize on others' evasions. But in presidential press conferences there is no immediate opportunity to do this except after the fact, and the broader listening public tends not to care. But restive listeners to a presidential press conference are entitled to wonder, if they are left squirming, why the press conference forum was selected, the president having always the alternative of simply making a statement or giving a speech. Mr. President -- one reporter asked -- Secretary Powell has said that we have shared with our allies all the current up-to-date intelligence information on the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein. That being so, how do you account for "their reluctance to think the threat is so real, so imminent?" The president handled that question by not answering it. His evening's inventory, drawn on repeatedly during the conference, was that Hussein was a threat, was not disarming, had been given 12 years to disarm; that his failure to do so activated the president's supreme responsibility, which is to look after the security of the American people. All of the above is correct, but leaves entirely unanswered why Germany and France are less concerned for security than the United States. Don't say anything, Mr. President, critical of our allies! One can hear the warning stressed at the dress rehearsal, and indeed it is entirely understandable that a president should avoid unnecessary provocations. What would he be expected to say, for heaven's sake? That the leaders of Germany and France are delinquent civil officials? That they are as immaterial in the world of public presidential affairs. So ... you don't answer the question of a reporter. Are you arguing you should satisfy the reporter and antagonize President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder? The president had a terrible time on the matter of the United Nations. The reporter wanted to know whether President Bush would be "defiant of the United Nations if you went ahead with military action without specific authorization of the U.N.?" The only answer to that is: Yes. What we got was that it was Mr. Bush who took the issue to the United Nations in September 2002; that he wants the U.N. to be effective; that it's important for it to be a "robust, capable body;" and where our security is involved, we "really don't need the United Nations' approval." The president reminded the reporters that there had been skepticism about the U.N. last fall, but that when it came to a vote, Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously by the Security Council. He expressed the hope that the U.N. would, when it came down to it, concur with the new resolution. Much presidential sweat was undoubtedly expended on the implications of his saying we'd go with or without U.N. approval. Two analyses were undoubtedly examined, the first, that to defy the United Nations hypothetically would encourage Security Council hostility; the second, that firmness would bring the benefits of resolute leadership. But Mr. Bush, tied down by requirements of protocol and diplomacy, was not denied the opportunity to exhibit his great personal skills, which are sincerity of demeanor and his identification with high purpose. He revealed a true humility in telling the world that he sought guidance from the Almighty, and his professed gratitude for spiritual support was arresting. "It's a humbling experience to think that people I will never have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And for that I'm grateful. That's ... it's been a comforting feeling to know that is true. I pray for peace." The exposure to George W. Bush was the only harvest of the press conference, and justified the hour. William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, a TownHall.com member group. ©2003 Universal Press Syndicate

To: calgal who wrote (517)	3/10/2003 12:32:39 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 601

John Leo March 10, 2003 URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20030310.shtml Europe seeks ephemeral peace at all costs Europe's appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s is similar to the sad performance of France and Germany today. The '30s appeaser in chief -- British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- drew applause for capitulating at Munich and was said to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, just as Jacques Chirac has been mentioned for the prize today. Then, as now, France had a weak head of state unruffled by growing danger abroad and rising anti-Semitism at home. The venerable journalist Alistair Cooke, who is old enough to remember the period, points out that Hitler reneged on the First World War peace treaty without much objection for two years before the Munich appeasement, compared with Saddam Hussein's 12 years of defying the terms of the United Nations' Gulf War cease-fire. Then, as now, the timid and the fearful argued that a murderous tyrant may have terrible new weapons, but, after all, he hasn't turned them on us yet. The arguments for doing nothing were eerily like Western Europe's today, even down to the insistence that the comatose League of Nations, predecessor of the comatose United Nations, was the true guardian of world peace. The league exercised its guardianship by doing nothing about the Japanese seizure of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, approximately what the U.N. did when Syria seized Lebanon and China gobbled up Tibet. "A majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler -- except fight him," Cooke said recently. Europeans were eager to talk but not to act. "The French especially urged, after each Hitler invasion, 'negotiation, negotiation.' They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied." From 1939 on, it was an American president and a British prime minister standing up on behalf of the many backbone-free Europeans. Sounds familiar. "Western Europe has almost gone the way of Weimar," Victor Davis Hanson wrote recently on National Review Online. "Amoral, disarmed and socialist, it seeks ephemeral peace at all costs, never long-term security, much less justice." Just so. Like the League of Nations, the United Nations today likes to fill the air with talk and content-free statements intended to placate all parties to any dispute. The aim is to keep the game going, not to solve anything. Hans Blix, the ultimate U.N. bureaucrat, is unusually good at this, issuing his many double-barreled statements that Iraq is both way out of compliance and almost in compliance at the same time. Last week Blix announced that, on the one hand, Iraq has been "proactive" in complying with inspectors, although, on the other hand, its record of compliance "has not been good." The alleged proactivity consists of Saddam Hussein's striptease, throwing a few weapons overboard as pressure is applied, more as war comes closer. Blix of course was pleased and said he could use four more months of rummaging around the desert looking for weapons. Iraq agreed to comply in 15 days back in 1991, but if 12 years wasn't nearly long enough, 12 years and four months should certainly do it. Bringing the United Nations along and coaxing it to live up to its 17 resolutions on Iraq would have been useful. But the notion that the U.N.'s "moral" approval was somehow necessary is ludicrous, particularly since U.N. morality includes turning over its human rights committee to Libya and repeatedly branding as racist the only Middle East democracy, Israel. President Clinton got it right, verbally at least, in 1998. He said then that Iraq was "a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals." In urging strong action on Iraq, The Washington Post referred to Clinton's words as "perceptive but ultimately empty" because they led to no meaningful action. In the post-9/11 world, refusing to act is far more dangerous. Saddam has the ability and the hostility to churn out weapons for those who wish to inflict grave damage on the United States. It's time to do something about it. ©2003 Universal Press Syndicate