Defending Bush Slovakian-style
Slovakian Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda spoke the truth about the MSM’s coverage of the Iraq War during President Bush’s visit to the former Communist country. Here’s the tasty bite:
“President Bush told me in Brussels: ‘I am so unhappy that media creates the picture that Bush wants war in Iran. This is crazy,’ ” Mr. Dzurinda told a small group of reporters over lunch.
The prime minister was reminded that while the governments of Central and Eastern Europe supported Operation Iraqi Freedom, the populace was much more skeptical, according to polls.
Mr. Dzurinda responded by telling the journalists, including one from CNN, that he was “shocked” to see media outlets like CNN and the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) showing “only American soldiers killing people. But nobody was able to show Saddam Hussein, who killed many, many thousands of Iraqi people.”
“It was impossible to see a real picture of this regime,” he lamented. “And the result is the public is one day strongly against Bush. ‘Bush loves war,’ he’s ‘new terrorist,’ and so on and so on.”
The prime minister predicted that it is “only a question of time when people in Slovakia, in Germany, in European countries, will understand more that this activity were necessary. And the world, without Saddam Hussein, is much more democratic than before.”
This blatant honesty is refreshing from a European leader. It seems that the Eastern Europeans are more grateful to the United States for their freedom (liberating the eastern bloc countries from Soviet repression) than their Western European counterparts. For example, the Frenchy-French would be speaking German if it were not for the bravery of American troops yet they have violently opposed the U.S. in liberating Iraq. If any European deserves an invitation to Bush’s ranch (besides Tony Blair), it’s Dzurinda.
Here’s some of Dzurida’s comments prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq:
Iraq pursued a nuclear weapons programme, and owned and produced tons of banned chemical and biological weapons. Its arsenal included thousand of litres of anthrax, warheads with mustard gas, biological bombs, and the VX nerve agent. The task of the inspectors who returned to Iraq a few weeks ago is not to prove that Hussein owns such weapons. On the contrary - Saddam Hussein has an obligation to prove that he has disarmed. Weapons inspectors report that he has not provided the requested evidence on the destruction of chemical weapons, has failed to fulfil the demands of disarmament, and is concealing documents from them. Therefore: Iraq had the weapons, and under a resolution of the UN Security Council was required to produce evidence of disarmament. It did not do so. It did not submit the evidence. It did not cooperate as required. It did not comply with the UN resolution.
Facts, experience, and common sense speak clearly: If such a regime - in the face of tremendous pressure from the international community - fails to act in an honest and sincere manner, it harbours evil intentions. When such a regime trains and supports terrorists who present a global threat, it must be brought down as a matter of self-preservation and self-defence. The longer such a regime stays in power, the greater the danger of other terrorist attacks, similar to those in New York, Washington, Bali, or Moscow. Today’s international terrorism does not take the form of isolated acts committed by individuals - it is represented by a well-trained army, which needs bases, support, and weapons. There is a direct link between regimes such as Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq and terrorism. The idea of chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists is an ominous one.
We support the peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, the historical experience of both Europe and our homeland tells us that yielding to aggression does not lead to peace. In the last century, Europe pondered whether and how it should confront a mad dictator. The decision to yield to Hitler was taken in Munich in 1938. Fifty million people paid the price of this decision with their lives.
He has it right. Only preemptively striking the terrorists can we be safe and protect ourselves against catastrophic death. If the United States or other nations “yield” to terrorists (i.e., favor diplomatic pusillanimity) and placate instead of punish, we place our future into terrorist hands. I wish there were more Dzurinkas than Chiracs in Europe.