The President's Press Conference: Hardly Reassuring

[Shizamus]

By Chuck Baldwin
April 16, 2004


Listening to the president's press conference earlier this week
created more angst than assurance. If President Bush intended to
comfort the American people regarding the tenuous situation in
Iraq, he didn't succeed.

In the first place, the president repeatedly talked about "changing
the world," what's "good for the world," and "freedom for the
world." Call me naïve, but since when is it the responsibility of an
American president or the American nation to "change the world"?
Is G.W. Bush the President of the United States or is he the ruler of
the world? I wonder if he knows.

The tone of the president's press conference left little doubt that
George W. Bush is a globalist of the highest order. We knew his
father was. Now, it is more than obvious that Dubya is, as well.

I'm sure most of my readers recall that it was George Herbert
Walker Bush who introduced the term "New World Order" to
America. Many elitists have since spoken and written loquaciously
on the subject, but it was Bush, Sr. who first broached the idea of a
new international order.

It seems lost to Bush I and to Bush II that the United States is an
independent nation and has no authority or commission to "change
the world." Not only is internationalism not humanly possible, it is
contrary to everything the United States stands for and,
furthermore, it is downright devilish in nature.

Independent nationhood is the gift and plan of God. Anyone
attempting to bring about an international "New World Order" will
meet with the same fate as did the builders of Babel. That
President Bush would justify the attack on Iraq by saying we are
"changing the world" is disconcerting, to say the least.

Secondly, President Bush said the United States would "pass
sovereignty" to Iraq. That is an incredible statement to make!
National sovereignty is not the gift of the United States; it is the
gift of God! Furthermore, when did Iraq vote for American
occupation of their country? Everyone (including the Bush
administration) knows that if elections were held in Iraq today,
they would vote to kick the U.S. out of their country tomorrow!

Does President Bush see the American government as the grantor
of state sovereignty? Does he regard the United States as the great
determiner of nationhood? If he does (and his rhetoric makes it
sound as if he does), he is nothing more than a modern day Caesar!

Thirdly, it was hardly reassuring when President Bush
acknowledged that he didn't have a clue to whom control of Iraq
would ultimately be given. The specific question was, "And, Mr.
President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on
June 30th?"

Bush answered by saying, "We'll find that out soon. That's what
[U.N. envoy Lakhdar] Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the
nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over."

WHAT???

The president has no clue who we will hand power to but he is
dogmatic that we will do it by June 30! Furthermore, I thought the
idea was to give the Iraqi people freedom. If that is true, it means
they would be free to decide for themselves whom they wanted in
power, would they not? What is this talk, then, of "the entity" we'll
be handing power to? Forgive me, folks, but the president totally
lost me on that one!

Let's be honest: Iraq is a mess! The troops that came home are
quickly heading back. It is doubtful that we are even capable of
sending and keeping enough troops to and in Iraq to properly
control the situation there. We have no plan for getting out. Bush
said that even after we turn control over to this phantom "entity"
on June 30, "And we'll need to be there for a while." How long is
"a while"? A year? A decade? A century? I have no idea and
neither does President Bush.

We are stuck in a nasty quagmire in Iraq that has already cost
hundreds of American lives and thousands of American casualties,
not to mention billions of taxpayer dollars. And there is no end in
sight.

Even more frustrating is the reality that the United States is no
safer today than we were before we invaded Iraq! Everyone knows
now that Iraq did not pose an imminent risk to the United States.
We also know that Saddam Hussein, though a ruthless dictator in
his own country (one of scores around the world, by the way), had
nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Beyond that, the one man who did mastermind the terrorist attacks
in 2001, Osama Bin Laden, is still on the loose, and the country
that has done the most to finance and support Osama's terrorists,
Saudi Arabia, is still on best terms with the United States and with
President Bush. The president has repeatedly wined and dined the
Saudi leader at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, even as our young
men are fighting the war against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would be easy for those of us who were opposed to the invasion
of Iraq to gloat now and say, "We told you so." But somehow
nothing such as that is in me. Instead, I feel sorrow and grief---and
concern.

As a father of three, my heart grieves for the families and loved
ones of those brave men and women who died trying to carry out
the orders of their Commander in Chief. I feel sorrow and a deep
sense of national regret that somehow they sacrificed their lives for
someone's political agenda.

Furthermore, I have deep concern that my country's leaders are
once again committing the lives and safety of the United States to a
very jeopardous future. When it comes to war, the loss of
American lives, the safety and security of our country, there should
be no politics. There should be no Democrat or Republican, no
liberal or conservative. It doesn't seem, however, that our political
leaders truly comprehend that.

Therefore, this is no time to gloat, or to crow, or to proclaim glib
partisan propaganda. It is time to pray for America and for our
leaders, because I don't think they have a clue what they are doing.
And like it or not, agree with it or not, we will all live with the
consequences.

© Chuck Baldwin

[Greg]

As far as our relationship with Saudi Arabia (non-democratic), I would somewhat agree. It is about oil, not just relationships in the area. Our country has not promoted becoming more secure by improving alternative energy resources that are very viable.

The rest of it would have a valid point, say if we had gone into Syria, Pakistan, Iran, etc. However, it was Iraq. A group of nations agreed to support a U.N. decision. Sadam gave all of them the finger for the past 12 years. When it came time to have to back up the agreement, many backed out because of what it would cost financially, and what it would mean to them politically. They did not walk their talk. Basically, the resolution was empty. The remaining few who decided to finally do something about, did so, realizing the cost, and realizing that it may cost them politically regardless.

1) Who invaided Kuwait?
2) Who harbored and supported terrorism financially?
3) When it was our men in blue getting shot at supporting the agreed to "no-fly" zones that the other countries said was necessary, who was it that was shooting at them?
4) Who didn't follow the U.N. agreement after they said they would?
5) If Iraq wouldn't have been called onto the carpet, just what would everybody have been talking about 10 years from now? That we will never know, but the price paid then may have been even much higher. Of course, then more countries would be in agreement and support. But really, who would be called on then to still handle the even bigger mess for the most part, financially and militarily? Sadam was going to push, and keep pushing, as far as he could go. Then stop, wait, and start doing it all over again. So do we worry about being popular, or in supporting the agreement that was made with resolve? War and death is a mess anytime. It is a sad thing to be sure.

Regardless of how we got to where we are today, we need to put our energy now into the best way to resolve the issue. As far as having a voice, there will be elections in November.