posted on Feb, 21 2004 @ 01:43 PM
In such case, you forgot to mention these:
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once,
but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians,
firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy but even against his own people,
gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq".
"The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations
-- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the
consequences of defying the U.N."
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along
with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without
delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it
actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors."
"In short, the inspectors are saying...their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors
disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors..Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now."
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United
States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he
will use it again as he has in the past... If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be
"We are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my
military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a
matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons." (for which,
prophetically, this has or has not come true).
"Our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation
with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we
must deal with the very real danger he poses... First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving
against his own Kurdish citizens."
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the
world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a
government that respects the rights of its people".
"We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt........we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they
are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far
greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop
weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
"Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. When we must act in America's vital interests, we
will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century,
we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of
Did Bush say all that, too?
[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]