BOXED IN:

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat (Remarks by the President on Iraq, Cincinnati, Ohio, 10/07/02)

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

The fact that even opponents of the war are forced to acknowledge-except for Jim McDermott-that Saddam Hussein is despicable, and a threat to at least his own people, seriously weakens the case against regime change. In effect they acknowledge that the goal is legitimate but then argue for weaker means. Inevitably they end up seeming somewhat unserious, if not "soft". At the point where you're saying-"Yeah, he's evil, but?"-you're losing the argument. That may not seem fair but if they wish it to be otherwise they really have to accompany their dovishness with a case for why Saddam should stay in power and that most, other than the most brutally "realist" advocates of "stability" at any cost., are understandably reluctant to do. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 7, 2002 9:44 PM