The debate has ended. President George W. Bush has declared himself the winner.
That is what the words “… must leave Iraq within 48 hours” from the president’s Monday night speech mean. Of course he’s referring to Saddam Hussein and his sons, but it means so much more.
It means we aren’t discussing this further, at least not with Bush.
I know Bush’s announcement adjourns the “official” debate.
But consider it, “in the early 1990s,” as he said, “Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.”
Can anyone fault his choice of words, “in the early 1990s”?
Let’s take the precision up a notch to see.
Resolution 678 was passed Nov. 29, 1990 after the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq that August.
Resolution 687 was passed April 3, 1991 before the end of the war to liberate Kuwait.
Why does Bush say “in the early 1990s” instead of “during the Iraqi aggression” or the “during the war”?
Does it serve his purpose to make it sound as though it was in those halcyon days after the war ended that the United Nations authorized military intervention in Iraq? You remember those early 1990s don’t you?
If he had said “during the war” the United Nations passed those resolutions, wouldn’t many think right away, “but the war ended long ago”?
Indeed Bush’s efforts to convince the United Nations to invade Iraq these 12 years later were not wholly successful, neither in interpreting old resolutions nor in making new ones.
By many definitions he lost that debate.
At the moment though, his definition is the one that counts and he is still running for that lone-voice-of-reason position.
Say what you will the man is determined. Anyone who attempts to tell the United Nations what their own resolutions mean is determined.
If any member said, “Thanks George, but we wrote the resolutions and know very well what they mean,” I only wish I could be there to tape it.
I am not arguing for Hussein or against Bush . The only advocacy in debate should be for the truth. I like to believe I am an advocate for the truth.
I can’t prove Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
I don’t think anyone can. It is more than 168,000-square miles.
I can’t prove the Sept. 11, 2001 attackers are not tied to Iraq.
This being the case, perhaps we should settle for Iraq just not using weapons of mass destruction or at least let that weigh in Iraq’s favor. I think the United Nations did.