Five years ago, Bush warned of "gathering danger" and told the United Nations that the United States will "stand'' against the threat. Sept. 12, 2002, White House photo by Paul Morse
by Mark Silva
Five years ago, President Bush stood before the General Assembly of the United Nations and warned about “a grave and gathering danger.’’
That perceived threat was the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather,’’ Bush said then.
That speech came one day after the anniversary of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, and it came 10 days before Bush delivered a resolution to Congress seeking authorization for the use of force against Iraq.
The president got that authority a month later, but the U.S. never found the weapons which Bush warned the U.N. about on Sept. 12, 2002.
Five years later, Bush returns to the U.N. General Assembly today to speak of the tyranny and violence and poverty and disease and ignorance and illiteracy that pose threats to world security today. The White House insists that today’s speech will not concentrate on the new threat which Bush warns about in the region: Iran, with its alleged designs on nuclear weaponry and its support for insurgents fighting inside Iraq.
“The speech is not about Iran, as much as many people are trying to make it out to be,’’ White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said last night in New York. “ It's about liberation…
"The speech is about liberation and how liberation from poverty, disease, hunger, tyranny, and oppression and ignorance can lift people up out of poverty and despair; and that the U.N.'s core mission is in align with that, and that that's what we should all be working towards,'' she said. "There's a brief mention in the speech, latest draft I saw, about Iran, but it's certainly not a focus.’’
These are highlights of what Bush had to say to the General Assembly five years ago, near the eve of the congressional authorization for war in Iraq:
“Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger,’’ Bush said then. “We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand….
“We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear…
“The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man….
“Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease….
“Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions…
“In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront. ..
“He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. ..
“Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. ..
“We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
“Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming…
“The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?...
“My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account.
“We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions,’’ Bush said then. “But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
“If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time…
“We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand.’’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If being a tyrant is a requirement for being an expert on the subject he's got plenty of experience.
He's a JOKE!
Posted by: RB-Chicago | September 25, 2007 6:47 AM
The number one accomplishment of the George Bush administration is not the record deficits, or stagnant science, or rampant theft, or even a legacy of nation-dividing Culture War. Rather, it is something that until a few years ago seemed downright impossible -- bringing low the finest and most professional national military the world has ever seen.
Especially the U.S. Army, Admiral Michael Mullen, has called “in critical condition.”
Despite frantically posturing as tough, flag-waving patrots, the neoconservative cabal (led largely by men who avoided or took cushy military service) has in fact succeeded in making America far less safe. Not only by driving away allies and spurring recruitment of Islamic radicals, but -- even worse -- by demolishing much of the power, elan, and reputation of the services that are dedicated to protecting us.
This problem ranges far beyond the military, of course. Elsewhere I speak to what ought to be the core issue of our coming elections. A broad campaign, led by our president, to bully, quash, subdue and politicize the professionals of the Civil Service, the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the scientific community and countless other skilled public servants. A campaign whose paramount victims are the brave men and women of America’s armed forces.
Along with “invincibility,” our nation -- and military -- used to benefit immensely from another advantage in the realm of appearances. A reputation for honorable behavior, hewing to the high moral standing that we established when we shocked the world by showing kindness to defeated enemies, like Germany and Japan. As George Marshall clearly saw -- with zealous agreement by (among others) Douglas MacArthur -- it can be not only good, but also profoundly pragmatic to seize the moral high ground. Because, over the long run, your nation will face more allies, instead of enemies or fence-sitting neutrals, if it is trusted, admired, and liked.
Don't let neocons get away with cynical shrugs (“who cares what foreigners think?”) We should all care, because nowadays. world popularity translates into power. We all saw this in the early nineties, when folk in Eastern Europe bravely told their communist masters “Either let us join NATO and the West, or shoot us!” They would never have done that, forcing the Cold War’s end game, if they thought that East and West were morally equivalent.
Would the Founding Fathers agree with my view, that it matters what the world thinks? Just re-read the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. The part that declares a solemn and basic duty to pay “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind...”
Moreover, this abrogation of our nation’s paramount moral standing has not only harmed us at a diplomatic and strategic level. It also has devastating effects on a smaller, tactical scale.
Over any span of time, tactical or strategic, decent, grownup and principled behavior is not only the higher moral path, it is also the practical road, leading to better long term results.
Yes, this is a statement that many neoconservatives would call naive. Witness how all but one of the present Republican presidential candidates claimed to be more eager to use torture than the others. (An ends-justify-the-means attitude to which Stalin, also, prescribed.) The words “last resort” were never used.
But we all know those words ought to be used. By adults.
Five years ago, President Bush stood before the General Assembly of the United Nations and warned about “a grave and gathering danger.’’
Little did we know the danger was coming from within.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner N379P | September 25, 2007 7:55 AM
Is the world as tired of Bush beating his chest at every speech as I am?
Posted by: bill r. | September 25, 2007 8:05 AM
“We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions,’’ Bush said then.
And when it was clear those resolutions could not be obtained, he stopped working with the Security Council.
The Security Council was right. The Murderer was wrong. And the world is vastly worse place because this craven coward's word proved worthless.
Our knuckledragging 26%ers may forget these facts, but the rest of world cannot.
This is indeed a useful look back into history. Fool me once...You can't...we won't...you don't get fooled again.
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 8:53 AM
More blithering idiocy from the Loons on the Left.
No Logic Man, you have an uncanny ability to so off-base on everything it's tragic.
What is the stagnant science? What is the theft?
What's even more comical is that you hypocrites fail to ackowledge your own party leaders warned of Hussein and Iraq since the 1990s. In fact, Gore even criticized Bush the Father that he didn't do enough to get rid of Hussein back in the early 1990s! That regime change in Iraq became a part of the Clinton presidency. That Democrats all spoke of Iraq's dangers right up until the war began. But then when the going got tough and it became politically expedient to knock Bush, many of the Demoncrats said, "we were fooled and lied to!" Nonsense!! No one was lied to. Not back in the 1990s. Not in 2002-2003. Not today. Well, actually there is lying. The lying has been done by the Demoncrats who turned on this war and because they have invested their careers on defeat and will do whatever they can to assure that we do lose the fight in Iraq and that the terrorists win.
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 9:26 AM
"gathering danger"
It was Bush all along.
Posted by: RomanB | September 25, 2007 9:27 AM
Since reporter Mark Silva didn't link to Bush's whole 9-12-2002 speech, I will:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Intelligent people would wish to read the whole speech (not just Silva's chosen excerpts) prior to making any judgments.
Posted by: Bruce | September 25, 2007 9:49 AM
John D.,
The only thing I'm guilty of was believing Colin Powell when he said Saddam had WMD. I can't begin to tell you how many people feel the same way.
We didn't trust Dubya. We didn't trust Cheney. We didn't truct Rumsfeld. But we did trust Powell.
We wanted to know how Powell & the CIA knew what was mobile chemical weapons labs shown in those aerial photographs with the big arrows pointing to them. But most people (esp. those of us with military backgrounds [that is not a slight at you]) (I'm talking about my Korea vet step-father, my friend the former P-3 radio operator & the like) knew you can't divulge sources and methods for gathering intelligence. So we trusted Powell.
Some day I want answers abouy how the CIA et al determined the capability (& ovious lack thereof) of Iraqi WMD?
I don't trust Dubya or anyone in his Administration about anything. And I'm nothing if not part of the majority of Americans in this way of thinking.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 25, 2007 10:03 AM
Doug Zook,
John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", still believes that Saddam had hundreds of mobile biological weapons trucks cruising the country, making tons of Anthrax to be unleashed upon the world, right next to his WMDs. Those mobile bio labs, just like the WMDs, never existed.
Posted by: BC | September 25, 2007 10:21 AM
Yes John D, the majority of Democrats voted to authorize the president to use force if necessary. Some may have actually thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Others simply feared they'd lose their lucrative political jobs if they voted no. But after Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, it was pretty plain that we didn't have any evidence that would justify starting a war. And who could have imagined that Bush and company would screw up their little military adventure so badly? The going got tough because Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bremer failed to plan for the occupation and had no idea what it would take to establish security in the country after our initial military victory. They ignored military planners like Gen. Shinseiki, who told them they'd need around 300,000 troops. You can hardly blame the Dems for thinking the Bush administration wouldn't do anything as stupid as disbanding the Iraqi army, for example. I look forward to your return post acknowledging any of the boneheaded mistakes made by Dubya and the utter incompetence his administration has demonstrated at every opportunity.
Posted by: Tom O | September 25, 2007 10:55 AM
Doug Zook-
Come off the melodramatic soapbox- this is not the 60's...where do you guys get these great lines!
"...craven coward's word proved worthless..."
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 8:53 AM
"...Our knuckledragging 26%ers may forget these facts, but the rest of world cannot..."
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 8:53 AM
Because WMDs were not found does not mean they were not in Iraq-
Just a thought- is it possible that George Bush actually knows more than you guys?
Posted by: heartburn | September 25, 2007 11:07 AM
heartburn,
Because you haven't seen the tooth fairy, does not mean she doesn't exist.
Because you haven't seen a unicorn, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Because you haven't seen a leprechaun does not mean they don't exist.
Because you haven't seen a dragon, does not mean it doesn't exist.
etc,etc.
You're beyond ignorant.
Posted by: jethro | September 25, 2007 11:19 AM
heartburn,
I missed where you quoted me.
But then again in the 1960s I was busy putting dear old Dad on the plane to go play in Vietnam and taking care of Mom & my little sisters.
You know, the '60s? It was when the ladies of Alabama referred to Dubya as "Texas Souffle" (good looking but full of hot air). It was also when Dubya became a deserter in time of war when he didn't show up at to the Alabama Air national Guard. But hey, who can blame the frat boy who got kicked to the front of the Texas Air National Guard by his daddy G.H.W. Bush the Congressman and RNC Chair.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kqAGrp0KYX0&mode=related&search=
And that's the truth.
Posted by: Doug Zook | September 25, 2007 11:21 AM
Tom, have mistakes been made? No doubt about it. Has there been a war in which mistakes weren't made? Not that I am aware of.
Disbanding the Iraqi Army, was that a mistake? Maybe, maybe not.
It's not so much that the war was screwed up but the occupation. In wars of yesteryear, the warring parties bombed and killed folks left and right. In recent years, wars (at least by those on the civil side of life like the U.S.) work extra hard to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. I know the Loony Lefties like to say that 200,000 or 400,000 or 600,000 Iraqis have died at our hands. The reality is that the Iraqi deaths are more like 75,000, with nearly all of them at the hands of their fellow countrymen or fellow Arab.
But the occupation has not gone as well as hoped, expected, predicted. It doesn't mean it can't get better nor that it hasn't in recent weeks. Because it has gotten better, and this is according to anti-war Democratic congressman Brian Baird, who is now persona non gratta by the Loony Lefters.
Success = hated and feared by the Loony Left.
Failure = celebrated and desired by the Loony Left.
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 11:32 AM
Just a thought- is it possible that George Bush actually knows more than you guys?
Posted by: heartburn | September 25, 2007 11:07 AM
It's possible, but there's no reason to believe that's the case. Strikes me that their failure to find WMDs, despite having strove mightily to do so, is pretty strong evidence that they were not there.
How's the Kool Aid? Cherry today?
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 11:47 AM
heartburn,
Because you haven't seen the tooth fairy, does not mean she doesn't exist.
Because you haven't seen a unicorn, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Because you haven't seen a leprechaun does not mean they don't exist.
Because you haven't seen a dragon, does not mean it doesn't exist.
etc,etc.
You're beyond ignorant.
Posted by: jethro | September 25, 2007 11:19 AM
Thanks Jethro-
You obviously struggled with the nuance of my post- I said because the WMDs were not FOUND.. Iraq had WMDs at one point..
Or- are the images of gassed Kurdish children dead in their mothers arms not compelling enough for you?
and many other countries confirmation that Saddam was a WMD risk was made up?
Beyond ignorant would be ignoring this- or doing nothing in the face of this evidence.. but enough about Mr. Clinton..
Even more ignorant would be to be given the Intelligence briefing prior to voting for the war- NOT reading it, and then voting yes anyway..but enough about Mrs. Clinton
Posted by: heartburn | September 25, 2007 12:00 PM
HB:
Hillary has no good excuse for trusting GWB in 2002. Anyone with the slightest capacity for discernment knew then that he was a deceitful little slug. So you're exactly right about her.
The rest of your analysis falls flat, for reasons that have been described over and again. The issue at the time was the choice between letting the inspections continue or going to war. Commander Chickenhawk unilaterally (as a practical matter) chose the latter, and we're all still paying for his bad judgment.
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 12:16 PM
Bush went to the UN General Assembly today to talk to the world about tyranny and violence, poverty and disease, and ignorance and illiteracy. Lets break this down.
Regarding Tyranny and Violence: Saddam Hussein was convicted, sentenced and put to death for killing 148 people in the town of Dujail after a failed asassination attempt on his life. In March of 2006, Washington post writer, David Brown, wrote that, "a team of American and Iraqui epidemologists estimate that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March of 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occured." This was a Bush/Cheney promoted, US-led invasion.
Regarding Poverty: With Bushanomics our nation is now close to the unequal distribution of wealth that occured in 1929. Yesterday, our dollar fell below that of Canada's dollar, and, again, the euro is at 1.40+ to our dollar. Everyone knows that we are paying obscene, and the highest gas prices in the history of the USA while oil companies are reaping record profits. No regulation on price gouging for the oil buddies. In fact they get record profits. Also, don't they, too, get seats on the board of the proposed W Bush presidential library-yet to come, and oil deals in Iraq where other people's children have died for the oil buddies' opportunities to get the deals? Do we need to discuss the record home foreclosures, job outsourcing and the many, new burger-flipping jobs? How about the huge tax reduction for the wealthy- causing that unstable, and greater inequality of wealth- leaving the middle class to pick up a greater percentage of the burden while that middle class has much less discretionary income? Let Bush teach the world.
On Disease: Bush thinks it is too expensive to pay for American childrens' health care- regarding a bill that congress recently passed. He needs to first get his own domestic house in order before advising the world on theirs. Bush is weighing, really hard, American childrens' health care- in light of his more than 1/2 trillion dollar and counting war supplimentals. Show the world.
On Oppression: Definition: to crush or burden by abuse of power. It does not have to be nation on nation. Can you say ANOTHER forced military rotation- without adequate recouperative time off for US soldiers? And remember when Bush would call anyone opposed to his war 'unpatriotic' or 'against the troops' in efforts to quell dissent? He has passive- aggressively hid behind "the troops" for many years. What does he really know about a day in the life of a soldier? (someone else asked, how does a C- grade point average guy jump ahead in line for a national guard position that has a very long waiting list?) Oppression can also be in the form of denying an alleged military combatant access to a lawyer. If they are guilty-address and convict them. I'd like to hear this discussed in the UN- even given this highly nebulous "war on terror".
On Ignorance and Illiteracy: First heal thyself. I dare say Bush did try to do something domestically here. But is NCLB being fully funded federally? Easy to put something into law if you don't have to make the numbers work. Look up the numerous articles on the need to revise NCLB. Bush took presidential credit for something the local school districts and local taxpayers must fund. Most urban schools in the USA still have very high drop out rates and low standardized test scores. What has George really done? We are still behind the curve educationally compared with other developed nations. Why have so many promising young people enlisted in the military to pay for college? Where is the non-military college funding help and educational investment for Americans? How come, at my daughter's college graduation, all 11 PhDs in engineering went to foreign students? Other nations really have learned from us. Too many domestic issues should have been addressed in the past 6 1/2 years. I think George will have a tough time convincing the world that he is credible. I do not celebrate any of America's failures. I'm sad there have not been more successes with this last administration. It would have been more success for all of us.
Posted by: Vivian | September 25, 2007 12:36 PM
John D, And you're convinced it's getting better in Iraq why? Because Democratic Rep. Brian Baird (who never left the green zone) said so? Because some general presented a happy report showing sectarian violence is down, based on his peculiar definition of which violent attacks should be excluded as non-sectarian? Or because we so rarely hear about those Blackwater guys shooting up dozens of Iraqis these days? I'm not that easily convinced. But if you're still buying the official line after "mission accomplished", the neverending "last throes", and "WMDs North, South, East, or West of Baghdad", I wouldn't expect you to doubt the propaganda now. Success in Iraq sounds great, but I'll believe we've achieved it when Georgie says he's bringing all our troops home. That's my definition of success.
Posted by: Tom O | September 25, 2007 1:00 PM
"We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress"
Hmmm....It seems as if 'we' have chosen a world of fear. Be afraid! Fear is patriotic!!
"Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear…"
Hmmm....again - what have we 'protected'? Our self interests maybe? 'Without illusion and fear'?! Iraqi H-Bombs raining down on Chicago from a Cesna right George/Dick? Inside every human is an American just waiting to come out right?! You are joking right?! It should be criminal to play with our country like this.
"the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man"
You are correct king George - only you are describing yourself.
The man is a delusional murderer and should be dealt with accordingly.
"Righties": Stop with all this 'defeat' nonsense. What is there to win? Nothing. If there is nothing to win, then the only thing to lose is human life. Terrorism is the modern day war monger fear mantra that replaced communism in the 90's. It's not perfect, but It's the only war we have....
I love this country, but honestly, we are powerful and we voted these cronies into office and we are not making the world a better place to live. If 'we' are that arrogant and unintelligent, then it maybe time for us to be taught a big lesson. Time is running out for us to get our act together.
Posted by: Proud member of the 'Americans for the euthanization of American idiots society' | September 25, 2007 2:33 PM
Success = hated and feared by the Loony Left.
Failure = celebrated and desired by the Loony Left.
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 11:32 AM
Wow John D, I've got a bridge that's for sale. Wanna buy that too???
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | September 25, 2007 3:04 PM
Great post, Vivian.
Posted by: a blinkin | September 25, 2007 3:36 PM
Logic Prisoner,
That would be the bridge to nowhere?
He'll buy it.
Posted by: C.Morris | September 25, 2007 5:24 PM
I guess by now its no surprise by now that Karl Rove was in Crimea a few months ago. The trip was a clandestine operation to prepare the region for the upcoming war in Georgia. The invasion and unrest in the region will help McCain look like he's strong on settling military issues. We wouldn't be aware of Rove's presence there unless Tony Snow had died while Rove was visiting. This will be Snow's legacy, to reveal to the world Rove's whereabouts before the conflict.
Posted by: Phaire Pleigh | August 26, 2008 2:29 AM