New Hampshire Delegation Praises Bush Speech
By Max Heuer
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12, 2002–New Hampshire’s Republican congressional delegation reacted to President Bush’s speech to the United Nations Thursday on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein with resounding approval.
“I thought the president’s speech was excellent,” Sen. Judd Gregg said. “He really put forward the case why Hussein is a threat.”
Rep. Charlie Bass said in a statement that he applauded Bush’s resolve on Hussein and fully supports the effort to effect a change in leadership in Iraq.
“The President made a strong case that Iraq is violating U.N. resolutions demanding inspections of suspected weapons sites,” Sen. Bob Smith, who was recently defeated in his primary bid for reelection by Rep. John Sununu, said in a press release.
Sununu said the president was “clear, forceful and direct.”
Still, some of the lawmakers remained guarded on the real potential for a full-scale war.
While Bush, in his address before the U.N. General Assembly, promised that the United States was committed to confronting Iraqi noncompliance with U.N. resolutions, he did not set a formal timetable for attack.
Such a timetable would be “premature,” Gregg said.
“The president is pulling together a coalition and getting support from the international community,” Gregg said, adding he suspected the United States would have the support of most democracies around the world.
In his speech, Bush directed responsibility to the United Nations, telling the General Assembly that the world body was at a crossroads and could become “irrelevant.”
But Bush did not offer any specifics on actions against Iraq, instead issuing demands of Hussein.
“I don’t think (Bush has) made a clear determination of what the next steps are in the region,” Sununu said after praising the speech.
Sununu added that the United States was already “engaged” in the region. He cited no-fly zones enforced by the United States and Britain in northern Iraq, as well as recent air-to-air combat in the region.
All of these steps, Sununu said, already serve the interests of U.S. policy in opposition to Hussein.
Bush stressed Iraq’s lack of compliance with a multitude of U.N. resolutions dating as far back as 1991, most notably in relation to Iraq’s development of biological weapons, its refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country in the past four years, and its potential for nuclear development.
“Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it could create nuclear weapons within a year,” Bush told U.N. delegates from around the world. He called any U.N. inaction on Iraq a “reckless gamble.”
But Gregg said he thought that U.S. aid to Afghanistan, and its ongoing involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could slow an offensive on Iraq.
“Resources are always an issue,” he said. But Gregg added he thought that Bush would not “move forward in Iraq” until the military could guarantee minimal loss of American life.
“We cannot afford to wait to let Saddam Hussein build weapons of mass destruction” that could be used against Americans at home and abroad, Smith agreed.
“My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolution, but the purpose of the U.S. should not be doubted,” Bush said. “The Security Council resolutions will be enforced or action will be unavoidable.”
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
