Text of President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Thursday, as released by the White House:

Es ist also nicht der Text der Rede, wie sie Bush gehalten hat. Mindestens in einem wichtigen Punkt weicht der „genehmigte“ Text von der gehaltenen Rede ab: Bush sagte, die USA würden sich an neuen „UNO-Sicherheitsresolutionen“ (Plural!) beteiligen. (Frankreich verlangt z. B. mindestens zwei neue UNO-Resolutionen: ein Ultimatum an den Irak und dann ein „Aktionsbeschluss“, falls der Irak die Forderungen nicht erfüllt. In der vom Weißen Haus publizierten Rede wird das Angebot Bushs aber auf eine einzige Resolution reduziert: „My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge.“

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: ...
Erst klopft sich Dabbeljuh auf die eigenen Schultern, preist die USA – den Text habe ich mir erspart - und bietet dann der UNO ein klitzekleines Zuckerbrot:
 
As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.

Dann hält er den arabischen Staaten ein Zuckerbrot hin:
Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security.
Dem Zuckerbrot für die arabischen Staaten folgt aber gleich eine Peitsche für das gequälte palästinensische Volk: Nicht die Palästinenser haben zu bestimmen, wer ihre Regierung ist, sondern Israel und die USA. Bush verkündet:
Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. Meint: Arafat und seine Verwaltung hat in den Augen von Busharon nicht genügend den Interessen der Palästinenser gedient. Denn das Hauptinteresse der Palästinenser ist ja allein, dass die Okkupationen und Eroberungen Israels legitimiert und nie wieder in Frage gestellt werden – oder etwa nicht? ...

Dann kommt G. Dabbeljuh B. endlich zum eigentlichen Thema:
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 the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

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.
Es folgt eine lange Liste der Sünden Saddam Husseins, auf die die bekannte Fabel Äsops passt:
Ein Wolf und ein junger Hund trinken durstig aus demselben Bach. Der Wolf beschwert sich: Du verschmutzt mir mein Wasser!
Der Hund versichert: Das kann gar nicht sein, denn du stehst doch oberhalb von mir am Ufer!
Der Wolf lässt nicht locker: Aber vor einem Jahr hast du über mich gespottet!
Der Hund versichert: Da war ich noch gar nicht am Leben!
Ständig gibst du mir Widerworte! Da sieht man, was du für ein Bösewicht bist!, ruft der Wolf und frisst den Hund.
...
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped – by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

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 again himself.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents – all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for – more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995 – after four years of deception – Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear 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. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq – four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left?
Es ist also nur eine bloße VERMUTUNG, dass S. Hussein heute immer noch nach Großwaffen strebt. Immerhin wurde ja über den Irak ein strenges Wirtschaftsembargo verhängt, was die Möglichkeiten S. Husseins sehr beschränkte. Aber es gibt dennoch nur eine einzige Schlussfolgerung: Der Irak MUSS gefressen werden!
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.
Der Irak muss gefressen werden!
 
Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have 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. Plötzlich ist Gewissheit, was eben noch Vermutung war. Der Irak muss gefressen werden!

The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. Wir können also nicht sicher sein, ob Saddam Hussein ein Verbrecher ist. Am besten, wir hängen ihn noch vor der Tat, dann haben wir seine Verbrechen verhindert!
We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming. Der Irak muss gefressen werden!

Doch was gibt’s an dem unappetitlichen Saddam Hussein zu verspeisen?
Der Irak verfügt über die zweitgrößten Ölreserven der Welt mitten in der reichsten Ölregion der Welt – voller arabischer Staaten, die den USA nicht mehr gehorchen wollen, und denen mit Geldgeschenken nicht beizukommen ist, weil sie halt leider nicht arm sind.
Und die Beißreflexe von „Terrier“ Blair werden vielleicht verständlicher, wenn man in Betracht zieht, dass die britischen Ölreserven in der Nordsee in spätestens fünf Jahren verbraucht sind.


Der Fehdehandschuh an den Irak und die arabische Welt ist hingeworfen. Der nächste Fehdehandschuh wird der UNO und ihrem Sicherheitsrat hingeworfen:
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?
Dem Irak wird mit „Aktionen“ gedroht, der UNO, dass sie von den USA boykottiert wird – was sonst soll die Drohung heißen, dass die UNO „bedeutungslos“ würde?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

Die Völkergemeinschaft bekommt von den USA Testaufgaben gestellt. Der Irak bekommt eine lange Liste ultimativer Forderungen.
Wann immer in der Geschichte der Menschheit ein Staat an einen anderen ähnlich rigorose Forderungen gestellt hat, bedeutete das nie etwas anderes als eine Kriegserklärung.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others – again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues – as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Selbst die Erfüllung all dieser Forderungen, mit denen die US-Regierung die Souveränität eines anderen Landes vom Tisch wischt, reicht nicht für den Wolfsappetit:
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq.
Die Regierung Saddam Hussein muss in jedem Fall verschwinden:
And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections. Also eine Statthalter-Regierung nach dem Wunsch der USA.

Waren nicht auch mal Gaddhafi und Fidel Castro die Oberbösewichte für die USA? Warum sind sie noch im Amt? Offenbar reicht ein Israel nicht, um die Ölregion des Mittleren Ostens „auf Kurs“ zu halten. Ein „zweites Israel“ muss her.
Findet Bush auch die passenden „Manager“ für sein Mittelost-Unternehmen? Wir werden sehen. In Afghanistan ist’s jedenfalls nicht weit her mit dem neokolonialen „nation building“ der USA.


... My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. 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.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

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.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. 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 hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

Thank you.“

Bemerkenswert ist die Reaktion der heutigen FAZ auf die Bush-Rede:

„Bemerkenswert war auch die Reaktion von UN-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan. Dieser warnte nicht - wie zuvor noch - vor einem Krieg gegen den Irak, sondern nur vor einem amerikanischen Alleingang. (...)
Annan unterstützt damit offenbar nun, wie auch die Ständigen Sicherheitsratsmitglieder Großbritannien und Frankreich, einen Regimewechsel im Irak, wenn der Sicherheitsrat ein Mandat dazu erteilt.
Bleiben die mit Veto-Kompetenz ausgestatteten Ratsmitglieder China und Russland. Diesen Staaten wird sich die Bush-Administration in den nächsten Wochen widmen. Da wird dann sicher nicht nur über das Völkerrecht geredet. Wie im zweiten Golfkrieg wird Washington versuchen, Pekings und Moskaus Zustimmung bilateral zu erkaufen: Um wirtschaftliche Vergünstigungen dürfte es ebenso gehen wie um Russlands neue Rolle in der Nato.
Es darf am Ende nicht verwundern, wenn eventuell noch vor den amerikanischen Kongresswahlen im November ein förmlicher UN-Beschluss für einen Angriff vorliegt. Bis dahin ist auch in Berlin die Regierungsbildung abgeschlossen - in welcher Konstellation auch immer. Dann wird ein Bundeskanzler Schröder oder Stoiber zu erklären haben, warum nun alles ganz anders sei als noch vor dem 22. September.“
(FAZ, 13.9.2002)

Die Bush-Regierung will den Krieg. Ich denke, es gibt derzeit keine Macht der Welt, die die USA von einem Mittelost-Krieg abhalten können.
Das Beste, was Europa in dieser Lage tun kann, ist, die USA unilateral in ihren Krieg marschieren zu lassen.
Wer für „Multilateralismus“ eintritt, wenn es um Eroberung der zweitreichsten Ölvorkommen der Erde geht, der will sich in den US-Karren spannen lassen und an der Kriegbeute teilhaben.
Wal Buchenberg, 13.9.2002