bushes

[jfb]

For my friends who believe that W.'s drive to eliminate Saddam Hussein is motivated in large part by issues with his father, a new twist: Bush Sr.'s doubts about a unilateral war. The article is misleading but still interesting.

Comments

Transcript

[artname.livejournal.com]

I knew I could find it eventually. The "fuzzier" is inthe Q&A, linked at the bottom. I have no idea what it is that's a little fuzzier.

PRESIDENT BACOW: The first question is an amalgam of a couple of questions, and I took the liberty of putting them together, so it's not specifically identified with one individual. In 1991, you worked tirelessly to assemble an international coalition to support military action in Kuwait. The United Nations Security Council gave its blessing to the intervention, and the U.S. was joined by an extraordinary coalition in a concerted action to overturn Iraq's invasion of its sovereign neighbor. Many viewed your efforts as really heralding a new day in international cooperation. Today the U.S. is poised to launch a preemptive military action against Iraq possibly without U.N. support. The difference between your policy of coalition building and respect for the United Nations, and that of the current administration is striking to some. Are you troubled by the willingness of the U.S. to act unilaterally without broad based international support?



PRESIDENT BUSH: I agree with the President, it would be much better to act with as much international support as possible. The difference between '91 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over -- that was my view -- to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it's less clear.



The violations of the U.N. resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have in a way of weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it's a little fuzzier today.