Talking the Talk

I don't think I've ever been this eager to hear a politician speak. U.S. President George W. Bush gave his <a href="">State of the Union address</a> a few hours ago. We all <a href="">expected</a> him to concentrate on two points: The war on Iraq and his plans to boost the U.S. economy.
I've received emails regarding my stance towards the war against Iraq, most of them chiding my na&iuml;vet&eacute;. I am not anti-war. I say this regretably because the years have taught me that war is sometimes an inevitable course of action. What I desire is a good reason for war – something that may somehow console me when I think of the bloodshed. People I could have met and known – dead because of our choices. I need a good solid reason, and I think many of us do.
What is a solid reason? One in which all or most of us can believe in. That is why it is essential (at least for me) that the United Nations are behind the decision.
I was impressed tonight. President Bush has, once again, shifted his stance. He did not emphasise the fact that America would go to war regardless of support from other countries. He didn't even implicitly imply that countries that didn't support the war weren't "friends of freedom". He said that he would lead a coalition into Iraq to disarm Saddam. He shown tonight a consideration for the viewpoints of the international community, which was a welcome reprieve.
Much like a Jerry Bruckheimer production, one has to discern fact from <a href="">fiction</a>. Though Bruckheimer's action flicks border on incredulity, Bush's speeches often come close to the same degree of exaggeration.
I come away tonight a little more content that this man is approaching some level of clarity. Having moved from nuclear weapons to weapons of mass destruction, Saddam having links to Al Qaeda to the possibility of the link, Bush has, at the expense of some credibility, moved closer to what is believable.
From the debates some things can be gathered:<ul style="color:black"><li>Saddam is in breach of the U.N. resolution calling for his disarming.</li><li>Saddam is presently not an imminent threat to the United States.</li></ul>So the question now is this: Does the breach of the U.N. resolution warrant a full-scale invasion of Iraq?
New information will be made known to us in the next few weeks. I hope the decision is made easier for all of us to bear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *