Bush: You're Either For Terrorism Or You're Against It
September 24, 2003
President Bush's recent lecture to the United Nations laid it on the line. He basically told them they are either for the terrorists or against them. “They have no place in any religious faith, they have no claim on the world's sympathy, and they should have no friend in this chamber,” he told them. I'm sure there were many in that chamber squirming in their seats. The body that houses representatives from the greatest nations on the planet also includes despots with either one degree of separation from the terrorists or terrorists themselves.
The United Nations is like the rich witch of the ball (I cleaned that up a bit). Everybody hates her but everybody wants to dance with her. George W. Bush just stepped on her foot. “Between those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters,” he said, “There is no neutral ground. All governments that support terror are complicit in a war against civilization.”
You see, countries like France, that whined all the while we did the heavy lifting in Iraq, are whining again. This time they want the UN to take over operations in Iraq. Not that sharing the load isn't a good idea but turning control over to the UN has disaster written all over it. That's why France and their French-acting counterparts in American politics want so desperately for America to turn the reins over to the UN. Their worst nightmare is coming true. We won the war in six weeks. Now we're winning the peace. They can't allow that to happen. If it does, they will be found out for the stooges they are; stooges of the terrorists and the America-bashers inside the UN.
The Democrats, frantically trying to wrestle power from the Republicans, have put up their own military man, Wesley Clark. The only problem with Clark is, unlike Colin Powell, he comes with considerable baggage. It's hard to find anyone inside the military who liked him. Like his dear friends the Clintons, he says one thing one day then reverses course the next. The latest example being his statement that he would have voted for war in Iraq had he been in Congress. The very next day he changed his statement, saying he would've voted against it.
He's also been known to show a gross lack of judgment. Against the advice of the State Department in 1994, Clark met with Gen. Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian-Serb general accused of slaughtering hundreds of civilians in pursuit of ethnic cleansing and now a wanted war criminal.
He's also been known to lie. He said he would've become a Republican had Karl Rove, the president's top advisor, returned his telephone call. The White House has no record of Clark ever calling and Rove has no recollection of ever having talked to him.
He said that the White House called him on September 11, 2001 and told him to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. When reporters grilled him about who made the call, he backtracked and said the call came from someone in Canada.
No wonder the Clintons love this guy.
Here's the point. We have the right man in office at the right time in history. Despite some of my misgivings about other issues, this president is prosecuting the war on terrorism abroad meticulously and courageously. He's willing to put the UN in its place and go about the job of securing peace without them, if necessary.