OT: State of the Union Jan 21, 2004 13:23:37 GMT -5
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jan 21, 2004 13:23:37 GMT -5
And, if there is a case where the security of the country is actually threatened, I'd agree.
I didn't hear too many people complaining when we went after the Taliban and terrorists, but then, they were really a threat to the US.
The dig against Chirac is odd, in light of Bush's comment. Apparently, it's OK for the US to not have to ask permission to defend the security of our country, but we also get to be peeved if France doesn't assist us in defending the security of our country, despite the fact that France does not perceive a threat to themselves.
Lastly, given the lack of any WMDs and the lack of any imminent threat, the administration has now rested it's case more on humanitarian grounds, in that Saddam was a bad ruler and bad for the Iraqis. It's a nice case of revisionism, but even given it is true, does Bush really think we shouldn't have to gain international support for wiping out a government of another state for their own good?
The Taliban wasn't a direct threat to America. They were removed from power because they gave safe haven to and refused to surrender those responsible for the attacks on our Country.
As far as France is concerned, yes they didn't assist us, neither did the Germans but the French took delight in being an obstacle. They threatened to use their Veto and Lobbied other Countries not to support the American Objective. France had it's own selfish reasons to turn it's back on America. It had little to do with Humanitarian Ideolgy. Let's not forget the fact that France is free because of Great Britain and America.
Now the "revisionism" you speak of is rather unfortunate. The administration should stick to it's guns and go after the Syrians next.