Here is a post I was quite proud of (when I wrote it). I have decided to rewrite the post and file the old one here.
I am getting sick of hearing that Bush lied and that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Iraq had two Ballistic Missile programs which were in violation of the UN, the al-Samoud Two and the al-Fatah. The Al Samoud missiles are ballistic missiles capable of going 180K. Iraq was not allowed to have missiles that could go beyond 150K, therefore, Iraq was in violation of the UN and international law. These weapons represented an ongoing WMD program in violation of the UN and cease fire agreements.
In Iraq, the coalition forces have found WMDs in the form of Mustard Gas, a deadly chemical agent, in weapons that Saddam's regime had declared have been destroyed. The UN did not find these munitions. Iraq declared that it had been destroyed after the Gulf War. The Iraqi government lied. These Mustard Gas WMDs, when stored properly, are capable of killing hundreds, if not thousands of people.
In Iraq, the coalition forces have found highly specialized WMD components necessary in the production of Nuclear weapons. The WMD weapon component was a centrifuge used to enrich uranium for use in Nuclear weapons. Oh... and let's not forget that we found and removed uranium from Iraq 2 tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1,000 highly radioactive items were removed. The spin from the left was that the uranium was not enriched, and that the uranium posed no threat... but Saddam had a centrifuge with which to enrich the uranium hidden in a scientist's back yard... Make no mistake, Saddam, if unchecked, would have continued to work on his nuclear aspirations. The uranium and the centrifuge ARE components necessary for making the ultimate WMD.
Outside of Iraq, the UN has been finding WMD components and machinery used in the production of WMDs that have been shipped off to foreign junkyards, sold as scrap, both after and immediately prior to the war in Iraq. This reeks of cover-up by Saddam loyalists who are probably still operating in the same capacity today in Iraq.
Outside of Iraq, in Jordan specifically, chemical weapons which came from Iraq, through Syria, were found in the hands of terrorists.
Has the US found enormous stockpiles on every street corner? No! The amount of WMDs we believed Iraq had could have easily have fit in a single warehouse or underground bunker... but who puts all of their eggs in one basket? Especially when the UN had been snooping around for years and had been let back in! There could be a single weapon buried under the house of each Saddam loyalist and we might never find them all (if that were the case). We might never find more unless we knew where to look... and Iraq is the size of California.
Imagine a warehouse dismantled and spread over the entire state of California. Now imagine thousands of loyal Californians trying to hide the warehouse and what was in it from you. Also, some of these loyal Californians have been shipping pieces out of the state without your being able to monitor this. Also, there are people from Washington, Nevada, Mexico, and other neighboring places, streaming into California to try to steal pieces of this warehouse and its contents. While you are looking for the warehouse and its components, people are shooting at you and undermining your every effort. This is the situation in Iraq.
Despite all of this, we have proven the existence of an ongoing illegal missile program, Mustard Gas WMDs, Sarin WMDs, low-enriched uranium, a centrifuge for enriching uranium, an effort to export WMDs and their components as scrap, and Chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists who traveled from Iraq, through Syria, to Jordan... and these are just the things that I am aware of and can think of off the top of my head. Think about all of the things which may have been found but kept under wraps in the interests of American Security.
And yet Michael Moron gets away with saying Bush lied. Michael Moron gets away with saying there were no WMD's... and people like Bill O'Reilly agree with Moron (as far as there being no WMD's). O'Reilly plays the role of Bush apologist ("This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious...") instead of confronting Moron with the truth... we have found WMDs.
Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq.... Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.
Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
While some military goods that disappeared from Iraq after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, including missile engines, later turned up in scrap yards in the Middle East and Europe, none of the equipment or material known to the IAEA as potentially useful in making nuclear bombs has turned up yet, ElBaradei said.
The equipment -- including high-precision milling and turning machines and electron-beam welders -- and materials -- such as high-strength aluminum -- were tagged by the IAEA years ago, as part of the watchdog agency's shutdown of Iraq's nuclear program. U.N. inspectors then monitored the sites until their evacuation from Iraq just before the war.
More proof of active WMD programs in Iraq. The US was justified in preemptive attacks.
[Spanish to English, bastante adj.: 1. enough adj.]
We’re with you, George, through thick and thin We support you still in the mess you’re in, But enough’s enough and as they say Bastante! down old Mexico way. We’re sick of our laws being totally ignored As our torero, George, you’re getting gored, Sly foxes laired south of our border Have reversed the natural feeding order.
This lawlessness on the Rio Grande, Now threatens us throughout our land, These narco-terrorists who rule supreme Have their own ideas of the American Dream: When terrorist acts bring us to our knees, Our country they’ll plunder at their ease, And poison minds of millions more Till our nation’s but a sickened sore.
All the greatness that precedes you, Sir, Is at full risk, lest you now stir, And seize the challenge facing you, Do what is right, do what is due. Stand up and seize your destiny, Preserve this country great and free. We are of laws, it’s of what we’re made, So put a stop to this lawless parade.
We’re with you, George, we’re in this fight, We expect you just to do what’s right. So get off your duff, Sir, with due respect, And do what America has a right to expect; Seriously defend our borders, Mr. President, Before there’s a nuclear terrorist event; An event so coldly, treacherously bold, It will leave your legacy forever cold.
Bastante, George! Americans cry. In your poco Spanish, you know why
This report, made up of quotes by Democrats regarding the threats posed by Saddam Hussein and his ties to terrorism are public record. Fortunately, the Republicans have finally gotten off their butts and are fighting back against the Democrats who have been trying to convince the American public that Bush lied and deceived us into going to war. They released this report this morning which I found at American Spectator.
This is a long email but you should read it to the end and then make up your own minds about who is lying to the American people. More important to consider is their motivation. It is apparent that to bring down the hated Bush Administration and to regain political power, the despicable, hypocritical leadership of the Democratic Party is willing to betray their own country and undermine the mission of our military forces in our fight against Islamic terrorism.
They have no shame and they must be driven from office in the coming elections. please disseminate this to all you know and print copies to shove under the noses of your liberal friends and relatives who believe Bush lied.
IRAQ & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID AND WHEN THEY SAID IT
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: "What Was Said Before Does Matter. The President's Words Matter. The Vice President's Words Matter. So Do Those Of The Secretary Of State And The Secretary Of Defense And Other High Officials In The Administration." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Congressional Record, 11/10/05)
Executive Summary: Democrats Consistently Warned The Nation Of The Threat Posed By Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction
Democrats, Circa 1998
-- President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." -- Vice President Al Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world." -- Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[W]e are concerned ... about [Saddam's] ability in the long run ... to threaten all of us with weapons of mass destruction." -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger: "[Saddam] will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again." -- U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson: "Facts are facts. Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas. It's that simple." -- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "[Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.): "[Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."
Democrats, Circa 2002
-- Former Vice President Al Gore: "We know that [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow." -- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): "These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
President Bill Clinton Called Iraq "A Rogue State With Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Ready To Use Them Or Provide Them To Terrorists..." CLINTON: "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
Clinton, On Saddam's WMD: "Some Day, Some Way, I Guarantee You He'll Use The Arsenal. And I Think Every One Of You Who Has Really Worked On This For Any Length Of Time, Believes That, Too." CLINTON: "[L]et's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
Clinton, On Saddam: "[M]ark My Words, He Will Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction. He Will Deploy Them, And He Will Use Them." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)
In November 1997, Clinton Directed Then-Secretary Of Defense William Cohen To "Raise The Profile Of The Biological And Chemical Threat." "Cohen, meanwhile, was arguing that a true U.S. vital interest -- and one that could easily be explained in public -- was Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, often referred to in abbreviated terms as WMD. Clinton directed him on Nov. 13 to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat. The following day, the former senator from Maine held a five-pound bag of sugar on ABC's This Week Sunday program and said the same quantity of anthrax could kill half the population of Washington." (Barton Gellman, Dana Priest and Bradley Graham, "Diplomacy And Doubts On The Road To War," The Washington Post, 3/1/98)
Cohen, Following Clinton's Orders On ABC's This Week: "What Is On The Horizon Is Anthrax, VX, Sarin, And Other Types Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." COHEN: "All of his neighbors in the region, I think, are fearful of what Saddam Hussein has done in the past and apprehensive of what he might do in the future. We intend to intensify that apprehension on their part by showing it's not invasion of Kuwait, it's not invasion of Saudi Arabia that's on the horizon. What is on the horizon is anthrax, VX, sarin, and other types of weapons of mass destruction." (ABC's This Week, 11/16/97)
Clinton: "I Have No Doubt Today, That Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Use These Terrible Weapons Again." CLINTON: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The White House, 12/16/98)
Clinton Insisted Saddam Sat Atop The List Of "Predators Of The 21st Century." CLINTON: "[T]his is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals. We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century, ... [T]hey will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE
Vice President Al Gore Claimed "Saddam's Ability To Produce And Deliver Weapons Of Mass Destruction Poses A Grave Threat ... To The Security Of The World." GORE: "There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat to the peace of that region and the security of the world. His defiance of the will of the international community to allow UNSCOM to do its job cannot and will not be tolerated." (Al Gore, Remarks At The Pentagon, 2/17/98)
Gore: "If You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Killâ€¦?" GORE: "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)
When Discussing Saddam's Iraq, Gore Invoked The Specter Of "Ballistic Missiles, Nuclear Weapons, Chemical And Biological Weapons." "Remember, Peter, this is a man who has used poison gas on his own people and on his neighbors repeatedly. He's trying to get ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude. We are not going to allow that to happen." (ABC News' "Special Report," 12/16/98)
Gore, In 2002: "We Know That [Saddam] Has Stored Away Secret Supplies Of Biological Weapons And Chemical Weapons Throughout His Country." (Al Gore, Remarks To The Commonwealth Club Of California, San Francisco, CA, 9/23/02)
FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE MADELEINE ALBRIGHT
Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright Said Saddam "Had The Capability With The VX Agents To Destroy Every Man, Woman And Child On Earth." ALBRIGHT: "Weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. It's hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to as you know, Saddam Hussein had the capability with the VX agents to destroy every man, woman and child on earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat." (PBS' The Newshour With Jim Lehrer, 12/17/98)
Albright: "[W]e Are Concerned, As The President Said, About [Saddam's] Ability In The Long Run To Threaten His Neighbors, And Frankly, To Threaten All Of Us With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)
Albright Accused Saddam Of Pursuing Dual Threats To International Peace: Terrorism And Weapons Of Mass Destruction. ALBRIGHT: "Countering terror is one aspect of our struggle to maintain international security and peace. Limiting the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction is a second. Saddam Hussein's Iraq encompasses both of these challenges, while posing yet a third. .. As we look ahead, we will decide how and when to respond to Iraq's actions based on the threat they pose to Iraq's neighbors, to regional security and to U.S. vital interests. Our assessment will include Saddam's capacity to reconstitute, use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks At The American Legion Convention, New Orleans, LA, 9/9/98)
Albright: "[Saddam] Has Chosen To Spend His Money On Building Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Palaces For His Cronies." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks To The Chicago Council On Foreign Relations, Chicago, IL, 11/12/99)
Albright Justified A December 1998 Attack On Iraq As A Way To Increase America's Security And "Deal With The Threat" Of Saddam's Weapons. ALBRIGHT: "President Clinton felt very strongly that it was in our national security interest to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, their capability, their future capability of threatening us, the neighbors, the regional stability with them, and that we had a responsibility as the United States to deal with a threat of this kind." (CNN's "Early Edition," 12/18/98)
Albright Argued Saddam's Pursuit Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Insistence On Lifting Economic Sanctions Was An "Incompatible Position." ALBRIGHT: "The purpose of it ... is to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. And the targets are related to that. They're going after weapons of mass destruction facilities, after military facilities, command and control security. ... [T]his is because Saddam Hussein has insisted that he wants to keep his weapons of mass destruction and have sanctions lifted, a clearly incompatible position." (NBC's Today, 12/18/98)
Albright Said The Risk That Rogue State Leaders Like Saddam "Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face." ALBRIGHT: "Iraq is a long way from [America], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. In discussing Iraq, we begin by knowing that Saddam Hussein, unlike any other leader, has used weapons of mass destruction even against his own people." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER SANDY BERGER
National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Said Saddam "Will Rebuild His Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Someday, Some Way, I Am Certain, He Will Use That Arsenal Again." BERGER: "Some have suggested that we should basically turn away. We should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again as he has 10 times since 1983." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)
Berger: "In The 21st Century, The Community Of Nations May See More And More Of This Very Kind Of Threat That Iraq Poses Now, A Rogue State With Biological And Chemical Weapons." (CNN's "Showdown With Iraq: International Town Meeting," 2/18/98)
Berger Claimed It Was "Up To Saddam To Decide Whether He Wants Sanctions Relief By Giving Up His Weapons Of Mass Destruction." BERGER: "[I]n December, Saddam Hussein once again broke his commitment to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors, ignoring our warnings. The United States, together with our British allies, responded with military force. We attacked Iraq's program to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his capacity to threaten his neighbors, but we have not eliminated the danger and our resolve to curb the threat Saddam poses will not diminish. â€¦ It is up to Saddam to decide whether he wants sanctions relief by giving up his weapons of mass destruction." (Sandy Berger, Remarks To Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Conference, Washington, DC, 1/12/99)
Berger: "I Think The Question Is Whether, Ultimately, Iraq Will Get Rid Of Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (CBS' This Morning, 11/16/98)
OTHER HIGH OFFICIALS IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION
Former Secretary Of State Warren Christopher Said Saddam Developed And Used WMD And Sponsored "Countless Acts Of Terrorism." "The record is, unfortunately, all too clear. Saddam has threatened and invaded his neighbors, developed and used weapons of mass destruction, sponsored countless acts of terrorism, and for the last two decades, he has relentlessly persecuted the Kurds and the Shiites. When Saddam tests the will and resolve of the international community, our response must be and will be forceful and immediate." (Warren Christopher, Remarks In Washington, DC, 9/3/96)
U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson Linked Saddam To Anthrax, VX And Botulism, Warning Those Weapons Might "Get In The Hands Of Terrorists That Saddam Is Supporting." RICHARDSON: "We're [sic] what the American people want: contain Saddam Hussein from going after his neighbors, but also, go after these deadly weapons of anthrax, VX, botulisms, some that are very, very big threats to future generations of children, not just in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but around the world, if they get in the hands of terrorists that Saddam is supporting." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 2/18/98)
Richardson: "Facts Are Facts. Iraq Has Been Deceiving The International Community With The Weaponization Of Nerve Gas. It's That Simple." (Michel Leclercq, "UN Inspector Says Iraq Equipped Weapons With Lethal Gas," Agence France Presse, 6/24/98)
State Department Spokesman Jamie Rubin: Saddam Had "Relentlessly Deceived And Obstructed Efforts ... To Identify And Destroy Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "[W]e have a lot of experience dealing with Saddam Hussein. For over seven years, their leadership has relentlessly deceived and obstructed efforts by the international community to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has misled fellow Arab leaders about his intention to invade Kuwait. He lied to UNSCOM when he said that he did not weaponize VX ... Iraq's leadership has never expressed regret or remorse for his past actions, which include gassing his own people and invading Kuwait. We do not believe he has renounced his aggression or using the most ruthless and barbaric means to achieve it." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)
Rubin: "If We Fail To Act, He Will Feel Emboldened To Threaten The Region Further, Armed With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." RUBIN: "Saddam Hussein is not an abstract threat. He has fired Scuds at his neighbors, attacked Kuwait, used chemical weapons on Iran and his own people. UNSCOM has shown, through its work, that he developed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and weaponized those weapons for delivery by Scud missiles. He has still not accounted for all these dangerous weapons. ... [I]f he continues to block UNSCOM and we do not respond, he will be able to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction in a matter of months, not years. And if we fail to act, he will feel emboldened to threaten the region further, armed with weapons of mass destruction." (Jamie Rubin, State Department Press Briefing, 11/10/98)
Former Clinton Adviser Rahm Emanuel Called It "Insulting" That Anyone Would Question Clinton's '98 Airstrikes "Given Everything Saddam Has Done." EMANUEL: "And I think that if you really look at this, Larry, that it is wrong, and I think it's insulting to the American people's intelligence, insulting to the men and women and professional professors [sic?] in our country, and I think it's detrimental to our foreign policy to really kind of question why we would go, given everything that Saddam Hussein has done over the years. We gave him one last chance." (CNN's Larry King Live, 12/16/98)
DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, LEADING DEMOCRAT SENATORS CAUTIONED AMERICANS ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
In 1998, Sen. Carl Levin And Twenty-Six Other Senators Urged President Clinton "To Take Necessary Actions" In Response To Iraq's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs. LEVIN: "Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President 'after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'" (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 10/9/98)
Fourteen Democrats, Including Then-Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle And 2004 Presidential Nominee John Kerry, Signed The Letter To President Clinton: ("Letter To President Clinton," as Entered Into The Congressional Record By Sen. Carl Levin, 10/9/98)
Carl Levin (D-MI) Joe Lieberman (D-CN) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Chris Dodd (D-CN) Bob Kerrey (D-NB) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Thomas Daschle (D-SD) John Breaux (D-LA) Tim Johnson (D-SD) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Wendell Ford (D-KY) John Kerry (D-MA)
Former Senate Democrat Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) Warned Of The Danger Of Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction. DASCHLE: "Iraq's actions pose a serious and continued threat to international peace and security. It is a threat we must address.... Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people. It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)
After The 1998 Bombing Of Iraq, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Warned Against "Partisan Finger-Pointing" And Said Saddam Was "Too Dangerous ... To Be Given Carte Blanche With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "We had to attack. [President Clinton] had to do what his military advisors told him he should do,' said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. ... [A]dded Reid, 'Now is not the time for second-guessing or partisan finger-pointing. National security concerns must come first.' Saddam Hussein â€˜is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction,' he added." (Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," The Associated Press, 12/26/98)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Argued That Saddam "Obviously" Was Working, "Secretly And Otherwise," On Weapons Of Mass Destruction. KERRY: "Mr. President, over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise. Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98)
Kerry Said Saddam Used Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Past And Wanted "To Try ... To Continue To Do So." "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. ... It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)
Following A Briefing By Clinton Administration Officials, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) Said Saddam's "Chemical And Biological Weapons Capabilities" Were "Frightening." "At a Capitol Hill briefing Tuesday night, administration officials showed that â€˜Saddam Hussein continues to be clear threat to the security of the region and to many of our allies,' Durbin said. â€˜His chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening. We have to take his refusal to allow inspections very seriously.'" (Dori Meinert, "Durbin To Support Limited Approval For Military Force Against Iraq," Copley News Service, 2/4/98)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Believed The Peace Of "Much Of The World" Was At Risk If Iraq Was Allowed To Protect Its "Biological, Chemical And Nuclear Weapons." "'Time and time again Iraq has flouted the efforts of our nation and the international community to bring peace to the Persian Gulf,' said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. â€˜With the peace of the region and, and in fact, much of the world at risk, we cannot allow Iraq to continue its maneuvers designed to protect such a dangerous buildup of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.'" (John Raby, "Congressmen Support U.S. Bombing Of Iraq," The Associated Press, 12/16/98)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "Saddam Hussein's Weapons Of Mass Destruction Programs And The Means To Deliver Them Are A Menace To International Peace And Security." LEVIN: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world's energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council." (Sen. Carl Levin, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)
Levin Spoke Of Gallons Of Anthrax And Tons Of VX, Noting Iraq Had Denied Possessing Such Weapons. LEVIN: "[I]t was only after there was a defector, Saddam Hussein's own son- in-law defected and said, look here, here, here, and here that then Iraq said “Oh, yes, we have 2100 gallons of anthrax. By the way, one spore, less than a drop of anthrax kills within days. 2100 gallons and then the U.N. went in and destroyed that. Same thing with the chemical VX; 3.9 million tons of this chemical. One drop kills instantaneously -- was denied by Iraq. The U.N. ... believes that he has 20 tons plus more of VX and six thousand gallons more of anthrax." (CNN's Larry King Live, 2/16/98)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Issued Grave Warnings About Iraq's WMD, Citing Chemical And Biological Weapons As Well As Anthrax-Tipped Missiles. "First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. The current regime in Iraq has ... displayed a callous willingness to use chemical weapons to achieve its aims. Recently, we have heard chilling reports of possible biological weapons experiments on humans. An UNSCOM Inspector has spoken of information that points to a secret biological weapons production facility. And Ambassador Richard Butler has told us that Iraq could well have missile warheads filled with anthrax capable of striking Tel Aviv. An asymmetric capability of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons gives an otherwise weak country the power to intimidate and blackmail." (Sen. Joseph Biden, Congressional Record, 2/12/98)
Due To Saddam's Efforts To Assemble Biological, Nuclear And Chemical Weapons, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Argued In 1999 That Clinton "Ended The Bombings Too Soon." "Senator Schumer is taking issue with several recent decisions of the Clinton administration on Middle Eastern affairs, despite his close association with the president and first lady. ... Schumer said America should renew its bombing campaign against Iraq ... A renewed bombing campaign against Iraq would show Saddam Hussein the price he must pay for his lack of cooperation and would inhibit Iraq's ability to assemble biological, nuclear and chemical weapons, Mr. Schumer said. 'The president ended the bombings too soon.'" (Uriel Heilman, "Schumer Says Clinton Should Resume Bombing Targets In Iraq," Forward, 1/29/99)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Warned That Military Action Against Saddam's Regime "Must Deal A Major Setback" To Iraq's "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program." "Feinstein also said that for the attack against Iraq to be successful, the air strikes must â€˜destroy the weapons of mass-destruction facilities and supplies that the thwarted inspections were designed to find...' â€˜At the very least,' she added, â€˜Operation Desert Fox must deal a major setback to the weapons of mass destruction program that has been in development by Saddam Hussein.'" (Stephen Green, "Feinstein Initially Questioned Attack's Timing," Copley News Service, 12/17/98)
DRAWING UPON INTELLIGENCE PROVIDED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, DEMOCRAT SENATORS CONTINUED TO OPENLY DISCUSS THE DANGER POSED BY IRAQ'S WEAPONS
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Acknowledged Iraq Breached The 1991 Armistice Agreement By Refusing To Destroy Its Stockpiles Of Weapons. REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Remarks At Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, 10/27/02)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): "Saddam's Existing Biological And Chemical Weapons Capabilities Pose Real Threats To America Today, Tomorrow." ROCKEFELLER: "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. â€¦ [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Believed Saddam's "Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" Represented "An Unacceptable Threat." KERRY: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)
Kerry: "According To The CIA's Report, All U.S. Intelligence Experts Agree That Iraq Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons. There Is Little Question That Saddam Hussein Wants To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Warned That -- If Left Unchecked -- Saddam Would Continue To Increase His Unconventional Weaponry And Even Develop Nuclear Weapons. CLINTON: "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) Said Saddam Was A "Terrible Danger" To America Because Of His "Vigorous Pursuit" Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. SCHUMER: "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Charles Schumer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Claimed To "Understand The Grave Danger Posed To America ... By Weapons Of Mass Destruction In The Hands Of A Reckless Dictator Like Saddam Hussein." "Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. ... I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 10/10/02)
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Announced In 2002 That Within Five Years Saddam Would Possess "Tactical Or Theater Nuclear Weapons." BIDEN: "My view is if five years from now Saddam Hussein is in power, left unfettered with $5 billion to $7 billion a year to pursue his weapons, he will be a grave danger to us, in the sense that he will intimidate the area and we will be unwilling to go after him because he'll have tactical or theater nuclear weapons." (CNN's Larry King Live, 10/9/02)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CN) Simply Stated: "There Is No Question That Iraq Possesses Biological And Chemical Weapons." DODD: "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly." (Sen. Chris Dodd, Congressional Record, 10/8/02)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) Felt Saddam's Chemical And Biological Weapons Posed "A Considerable Threat To Us." NELSON: "Well, I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us." (CNBC's "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) Listed The Weapons At Saddam's Disposal: "Ballistic Missiles, Anthrax, Sarin Gas, VX And Smallpox." BAYH: "Today, Hussein already has ballistic missiles, anthrax, sarin gas, VX and smallpox, and he could someday soon have nuclear weapons at his disposal. As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt conviction that we cannot." (Sen. Evan Bayh, Op-Ed, "Bayh Justifies The Need For Using Force Against Iraq," The Indianapolis Star, 10/10/02)
(This document was distributed today at the Senate Republican Policy Lunch.)
When it comes to pulling congressional stunts, We can see who are champs and who are the runts. Team captains like Reid and those other fool wusses Are like Nagin in N’awlins: they miss their own busses.
By the time they discover that they’re in a rout, The game is all over, the team bus has pulled out. So their players are outraged, Pelosi is pissed, The only Marine that they like has been thoroughly dissed.
And while Republican players are smirking and gloating, Second-string Kerry decries Murtha’s Swift-boating, A stunt that got John boy kicked out of the game, By proving his play stats were doctored and lame.
It hurts to admit it, but here’s the straight skinny: One honest Dem player is Cynthia McKinney, Who true to her heart, which is Red to the core, Voted boldly but badly to cut and run from this war.
While her timorous teammates who trash-talked so loud, When faced with the game play, got lost in the crowd. The Dems’ rookie captains are showing fatigue; Will their fans ever see they’re playing out of their league?
Vice President's Remarks at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala
Thank you very much and good evening to all of you. And I’m -- when I heard about your gathering, and since I work just down the street from here I thought I’d drop in and say hello.
Let me thank the good people of Frontiers of Freedom, of course, George Landrith, Kerri Houston, Al Lee, for bringing us all together this evening. And I see many good friends in the room, including current and former office holders, as well.
It’s a pleasure to see all of you. I’m sorry we couldn’t be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller. They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment. (Laughter.) I’ll let you think about that one for a minute. (Applause.)
I hope you’ll permit me, ladies and gentlemen, to say a few words that were not part of my remarks that I’d planned originally this evening but which concern a matter of great importance to our entire nation.
Most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city. (Applause.)
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that -- made by this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are the facts. (Applause.)
What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures –- conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers –- and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -– but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history. (Applause.)
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. (Applause.)
They and their families can be certain that this cause is right and just, and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable. And this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory. (Applause.)
Returning to the purpose of this gathering this evening, I want to thank Frontiers of Freedom for asking me to participate. And I want to thank all of you for coming together to support this organization. Frontiers of Freedom is an active, intelligent, and needed presence in the national debate. Washington is a city with many short-term perspectives and narrow interests competing for attention. Frontiers of Freedom offers something different –- a perspective shaped by the broad interests of the nation, and by principles that are relevant in every time. By advocating a strong defense, limited government, and the protection of individual rights -– and doing so in a way that is factual, honest, and well argued -– you are making a tremendous contribution. And I thank you for it.
It’s appropriate that an organization like yours should present an award named for President Ronald Reagan, who set a standard of principled conservative leadership that will stand through the ages. It is even more fitting that the Ronald Reagan Award should go this year to the man who started Frontiers for Freedom, my good friend Senator Malcolm Wallop. (Applause.)
And it is my privilege this evening to make the presentation. Malcolm is someone I’ve known and worked with for a long, long time. He and I, along with Senator Al Simpson, constituted Wyoming’s congressional delegation during the entire Reagan presidency. I remember those years with genuine fondness. Malcolm, Al, and I worked together on home-state and Western issues, and appeared together on many occasions all across the state. We generally saw eye-to-eye on the big questions facing Congress and the country, and we appreciated each other’s company.
Malcolm, of course, has a unique background as a citizen and as a public servant. He comes from Big Horn, Wyoming, was born into a pioneering family that also has a long history of public service. Malcolm’s grandfather, in fact, served in both the Wyoming legislature and the British House of Lords. After finishing college, Malcolm served in the U.S. Army, leaving with the rank of first lieutenant and returned to the ranch in Wyoming. I first knew of him in the ‘60s, when he was elected to the state legislature. And I was tremendously impressed, as all of us were, when he took on a longtime, very popular incumbent U.S. Senator –- and won the race by more than 10 points.
Malcolm was a great candidate, and an outstanding senator. He ran on the issues, spoke clearly to the voters, and connected well with the spirit of a very independent-minded state. And he always spoke his mind. Once during a debate on the floor of the Senator, Barry Goldwater was in a cranky mood and said the Senate was “beginning to look like a bunch of jackasses.” Malcolm stood up and said he couldn’t understand why Barry said beginning –- (laughter) -- because the Senate had been acting that way for a long time. (Laughter.)
Malcolm served in the United States Senate for 18 years, and built a superb record throughout. In the words of President Reagan himself, “Leadership, hard work, experience, loyalty to Wyoming -– that’s what Malcolm Wallop is all about.”
At the time Senator Wallop and I were first elected to statewide office in the late ‘70s, the federal government was showing signs of growing beyond the consent of the governed, and it wasn’t particularly easy to take on the permanent bureaucracy here in Washington. Malcolm never flinched from the task, because he believes deeply that government power must not only be limited in scope, but accountable to those it is supposed to serve. He insisted that regulations address the concerns of average people, and that regulators live in the real world.
To underscore the point, Malcolm ran a creative TV ad in one of his campaigns. I remember it well. It seems someone in Washington had come up with the idea of federally-mandated portable toilet for all ranch workers. People out West took this as a sign that the federal government was swerving way outside its lane. So to underscore how out-of-touch the bureaucrats really were, Malcolm ran a commercial that showed a cowboy on horseback with an outhouse towed behind the saddle. (Laughter.) He got his point across.
Malcolm had a great deal of influence on the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee. He was also one of very few non-lawyers ever to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And whether the question was energy production, tax policy, or the proper role of the federal judiciary, Malcolm Wallop was a reliable voice for common sense, for conservative values, and faithfulness to the Constitution of the United States.
As a leading senator, he was part of so many good things that happened during his time in public life -– from the Reagan economic program that led directly to the creation of millions of jobs, to the confirmation of outstanding jurists like Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
It’s in the field of national security, however, that Malcolm made perhaps his greatest contribution to the well-being of our country. National security is one of those areas where you have to think and act with as much foresight as possible. When I was Secretary of Defense, for example, my colleagues and I spent a lot of time planning and thinking about the needs of our military 10 or more years down the road, even as we looked after the day-to-day requirements of national security. And the best insights on Capitol Hill came from the members who were taking that same approach -– anticipating dangers, thinking through alternative strategies, and pressing for the kinds of technology our country was going to need to defend itself years in the future.
There is always a need for that brand of wisdom, and Malcolm Wallop has always been there to provide it. Here again, we must recall the period of the late 1970s, when the nation’s defenses were being neglected; when, around the world, both allies and adversaries were beginning to have serious doubts about the resolve and character of the United States. Malcolm Wallop came to the Senate and spoke out for a foreign policy that expressed American values with confidence and clarity, and for a national defense second to none.
During the Reagan years, those principles once again became the force behind American policy. Senator Wallop stayed in the lead, and was in fact one of the very first national leaders to advocate a defense of our country against ballistic missile attack.
If Malcolm Wallop had chosen to stay in public office for the rest of his life, I have little doubt the voters of our home state would have been happy to keep him. Yet he is more in the nature of a citizen legislator -– the kind the founding fathers had in mind –- the one who serves a few terms, gives it his best, and returns to private life. That’s what Malcolm Wallop chose to do. But he’s also a man of ideas who is constantly thinking about what’s good for the country. So there was no chance he’d just go off and hum quietly on the outside. As Malcolm said when he announced his retirement from the Senate, “I don’t think the only place to fight for freedom is in the halls of Congress.”
He was, of course, correct. And to this day Malcolm Wallop remains an articulate, discerning, and greatly respected player in the important debates of our time. I am pleased to count him as a colleague and a friend, and I can’t think of a more worthy recipient of an award named for a Westerner and hero of freedom, President Ronald Reagan. Malcolm, my congratulations to you. And, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Paristine With a nod to Joseph Farah at World Net Daily
Jacques and his frères are surely weeping Les pauvres immigrès have caught them sleeping, Paysans revolt, their emotions churning, What’s that odeur? Is Paris burning? Within the banlieues there’s no joy Among les jeunes who are sans emplois What, take a job? Not the way to go; We’d rather riot, torch your Peugeot.
Ah, Mother France you took us in, Then left us with no way to win. We’re not ègal, not garçons blanc, We’ve no real chance to earn a franc. No, what we are, we’re useful fools, For leftist dreams, just brown-skinned tools. So the Rèpublique’s butt is in a crack, Give your merci to Jacques Chirac.
We’ll breed you into minority, Till only mullahs hear your plea, And Shari’a rules throughout your land, A Frenchman steals, he’ll lose his hand. Your licentious lifestyle, long extolled, Will leave your women stoned, dead cold. But everything will turn out fine, In the Muslim Republic of Paristine.
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thank you all for coming, please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm glad to be back in Pennsylvania and I'm proud to be the first sitting President to visit Monroe County. (Applause.) I'm especially pleased to see so many military veterans with us today. Those who have risked their lives for our freedom have the respect and gratitude of our nation on Veterans Day and on every day. (Applause.)
Tobyhanna is a fitting place to commemorate Veterans Day. In the better part of a century, this facility has provided critical services for our armed forces. Around the clock and around the world, personnel from here maintain technology that our troops use to take the fight to the enemy. From Afghanistan to Kuwait to Baghdad International Airport, technicians from Tobyhanna are carrying out dangerous missions with bravery and skill. I know you're proud of them, and so is the Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)
Tobyhanna is also home to a thriving community of military families. Your support for those who wear the uniform and your support of each other through difficult times brings great pride to our country. The American people stand with our military families. (Applause.)
I want to thank Colonel Ellis for allowing me to come and give you this speech today. Thank you for your service to our country, Colonel Ellis. (Applause.) I want to thank Senator Specter and Congressman Kanjorski and Congressman Sherwood for joining us today. It was good to have them on Air Force One. (Applause.) I appreciate their service to our country. And I want to thank all the state and local officials, and I want to thank all the veterans. (Applause.)
Today, our nation pays tribute to those veterans, 25 million veterans who have worn the uniform of the United States of America. Each of these men and women took an oath to defend America -- and they upheld that oath with honor and decency. Through the generations, they have humbled dictators and liberated continents and set a standard of courage and idealism for the entire world. This year, 3.5 million veterans celebrate the 60th anniversary of freedom's great victory in World War II. A handful of veterans who live among us in 2005 stood in uniform when World War I ended 87 years ago today. These men are more than a hundred years old, many of their lives have touched three different centuries, and they can all know that America will be proud of their service. (Applause.)
On Veterans Day, we also remember the troops who left America's shores but did not live to be thanked as veterans. On this Veterans Day, we honor the courage of those who were lost in the current struggle. We think of the families who lost a loved one; we pray for their comfort. And we remember the men and women in uniform whose fate is still undetermined -- our prisoners of war and those missing in action. America must never forget their courage. And we will not stop searching until we have accounted for every soldier and sailor and airman and Marines missing in the line of duty. (Applause.)
All of America's veterans have placed the nation's security before their own lives. Their sacrifice creates a debt that America can never fully repay. Yet, there are certain things that government can do; my administration remains firmly committed to serving America's veterans. (Applause.)
Since I took office, my administration has increased spending for veterans by $24 billion -- an increase of 53 percent. (Applause.) In the first four years as President, we increased spending for veterans more than twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years, and I want to thank the members of the Congress and the Senate for joining me in the effort to support our veterans. (Applause.)
We've increased the VA's medical care budget by 51 percent, increased total outpatient visits, increased the number of prescriptions filled, and reduced the backlog of disability claims. We've committed more than $1.5 billion to modernizing and expanding VA facilities so that more veterans can get better care closer to home. We've expanded grants to help homeless veterans in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, because we strongly believe no veteran who served in the blazing heat or bitter cold of foreign lands should have to live without shelter in this country. (Applause.)
I've joined with the veterans groups to call on Congress to protect the flag of the United States in the Constitution of the United States. (Applause.) In June, the House of Representatives voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I urge the United States Senate to pass this important amendment. (Applause.)
At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of the 21st century. The war came to our shores on September the 11th, 2001. That morning, we saw the destruction that terrorists intend for our nation. We know that they want to strike again. And our nation has made a clear choice: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity; we will not tire or rest until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)
In the four years since September the 11th, the evil that reached our shores has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa and Casablanca and Riyadh and Jakarta and Istanbul and Madrid and Beslan and Taba and Netanya and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we have seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London and Sharm el-Sheikh, another deadly strike in Bali, and this week, a series of bombings in Amman, Jordan, that killed dozens of innocent Jordanians and their guests.
All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random, isolated acts of madness -- innocent men and women and children who have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet, while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology -- a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; and still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Hindus and Jews -- and against Muslims, themselves, who do not share their radical vision.
Many militants are part of a global, borderless terrorist organization like al Qaeda -- which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like the attacks of September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda -- paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, the Philippines, Pakistan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells -- inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for the world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they have openly stated it -- in videos and audiotapes and letters and declarations and on websites.
First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, their "resources, their sons and money to driving the infidels out of our lands." The tactics of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists have been consistent for a quarter of a century: They hit us, and expect us to run.
Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq -- the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents -- is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again -- only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country -- a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists. (Applause.)
Third, these militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Zawahiri writes that the terrorists, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq." He goes on to say: "[T]he jihad ... requires several incremental goals. ... Expel the Americans from Iraq. ... Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraqo Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."
With the greater economic, military and political power they seek, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction; to destroy Israel; to intimidate Europe; to assault the American people; and to blackmail our government into isolation.
Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme -- but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." (Applause.) And the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide before leaving the stage of history. Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously -- and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.
Defeating the militant network is difficult, because it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as pawns of terror. And they exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power. Instead of attending far-away training camps, recruits can now access online training libraries to learn how to build a roadside bomb or fire a rocket-propelled grenade -- and this further spreads the threat of violence, even within peaceful democratic societies.
The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They've been sheltered by authoritarian regimes -- allies of convenience like Iran and Syria -- that share the goal of hurting America and modern Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West, on America, and on the Jews. This week the government of Syria took two disturbing steps. First, it arrested Dr. Kamal Labwani for serving as an advocate for democratic reform. Then President Assad delivered a strident speech that attacked both the Lebanese government and the integrity of the Mehlis investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister.
The government of Syria must do what the international community has demanded: cooperate fully with the Mehlis investigation and stop trying to intimidate and de-stabilize the Lebanese government. The government of Syria must stop exporting violence and start importing democracy. (Applause.)
The radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They are strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam into unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided as well by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories, and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam" -- with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan and Bosnia and Somalia and Kosovo and Kuwait and Iraq; or our generous assistance to Muslims recovering from natural disasters in places like Indonesia and Pakistan. (Applause.)
Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions in Iraq -- claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001. (Applause.) The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and, yet, the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: the Israeli presence on the West Bank, the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. On the contrary, they target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that this road -- that this is the road to paradise -- though he never offers to go along for the ride. (Applause.)
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life. We have seen it in the murders of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg and Margaret Hassan and many others. In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim's grieving mother and said, "I don't feel your pain ... because I believe you're an infidel." And in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims.
Recently, in the town of Huwaydar, Iraq, a terrorist detonated a pickup truck parked along a busy street lined with restaurants and shops, just as residents were gathering to break the day-long fast observed during Ramadan. The explosion killed at least 25 people and wounded 34. When unsuspecting Muslims breaking their Ramadan fast are targeted for death, or 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, this is murder, pure and simple -- the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. (Applause.)
These militants are not just the enemies of America or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and they are the enemies of humanity. And we have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before -- in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination -- and they wish to make everyone powerless, except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, to control every aspect of life, to rule the soul itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing a future of oppression and misery.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples -- claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. Zarqawi has said that Americans are, "the most cowardly of God's creatures." But let us be clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque.
It is courage that liberated more than 50 million people from tyranny. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of rising democracies. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that will once again destroy the enemies of freedom. (Applause.)
And Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom -- by distrusting human creativity and punishing change and limiting the contributions of half a population -- this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants' vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past -- a declaration of war on the idea of progress itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt. Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation and decline and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)
We didn't ask for this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence, and with a comprehensive strategy. Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe and in the Middle East and North Africa and Asia and beyond. Working with these partners, we're disrupting militant conspiracies, we're destroying their ability to make war, and we're working to give millions in a troubled region a hopeful alternative to resentment and violence.
First, we're determined to prevent attacks of the terrorist networks before they occur. We are reorganizing our government to give this nation a broad and coordinated homeland defense. We're reforming our intelligence agencies for the incredibly difficult task of tracking enemy activity -- based on information that often comes in small fragments from widely scattered sources, both here and abroad. And we're acting, along with governments from other countries, to destroy the terrorist networks and incapacitate their leadership.
Together with our partners, we've disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th -- including several plots to attack inside the United States. Our coalition against terror has killed or captured nearly all those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks. We've captured or killed several of bin Laden's most serious deputies, al Qaeda managers and operatives in more than 24 countries; the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, who was chief of al Qaeda's operations in the Persian Gulf; the mastermind of the bombings in Jakarta and Bali; a senior Zarqawi terrorist planner, who was planning attacks in Turkey; and many of their senior leaders in Saudi Arabia.
Because of this steady progress, the enemy is wounded -- but the enemy is still capable of global operations. Our commitment is clear: We will not relent until the organized international terror networks are exposed and broken, and their leaders are held to account for their murder. (Applause.)
Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation. (Applause.) The United States, working with Great Britain and Pakistan and other nations, has exposed and disrupted a major black-market operation in nuclear technology led by A.Q. Khan. Libya has abandoned its chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as its long-range ballistic missiles.
And in the past year, America and our partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative have stopped more than a dozen shipments of suspect weapons technology, including equipment for Iran's ballistic missile program. This progress has reduced the danger to free nations, but it has not removed it. Evil men who want to use horrendous weapons against us are working in deadly earnest to gain them. And we're working urgently to keep the weapons of mass murder out of the hands of the fanatics.
Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally guilty of murder. (Applause.)
Fourth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror. This mission has brought new and urgent responsibilities to our armed forces. American troops are fighting beside Afghan partners and against remnants of the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. We're working with President Musharraf to oppose and isolate the militants in Pakistan. We're fighting the regime remnants and terrorists in Iraq. The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power, so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq. (Applause.)
Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive plan. Our strategy is to clear, hold, and build. We're working to clear areas from terrorist control, to hold those areas securely, and to build lasting, democratic Iraqi institutions through an increasingly inclusive political process. In recent weeks, American and Iraqi troops have conducted several major assaults to clear out enemy fighters in Baghdad, and parts of Iraq.
Two weeks ago, in Operation Clean Sweep, Iraq and coalition forces raided 350 houses south of Baghdad, capturing more than 40 of the terrorist killers. Acting on tips from local citizens, our forces have recently launched air strikes against terrorist safe houses in and around the towns of Ubaydi and Husaybah. We brought to justice two key senior al Qaeda terrorist leaders. And in Mosul, coalition forces killed an al Qaeda cell leader named Muslet, who was personally involved in at least three videotaped beheadings. We're on the hunt. We're keeping pressure on the enemy. (Applause.)
And thousands of Iraqi forces have been participating in these operations, and even more Iraqis are joining the fight. Last month, nearly 3,000 Iraqi police officers graduated from 10 weeks of basic training. They'll now take their places along other brave Iraqis who are taking the fight to the terrorists across their own country. Iraqi police and security forces are helping to clear terrorists from their strongholds, helping to hold onto areas that we've cleared; they're working to prevent the enemy from returning. Iraqi forces are using their local expertise to maintain security, and to build political and economic institutions that will help improve the lives of their fellow citizens.
At the same time, Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a democracy. Last month, millions of Iraqis turned out to vote, and they approved a new constitution that guarantees fundamental freedoms and lays the foundation for lasting democracy. Many more Sunnis participated in this vote than in January's historic elections, and the level of violence was lower.
Now, Iraqis are gearing up for December 15th elections, when they will go to the polls to choose a government under the new constitution. The new government will serve a four-year term, and it will represent all Iraqis. Even those who voted against the constitution are now organizing and preparing for the December elections. Multiple Sunni Arab parties have submitted a list of candidates, and several prominent Sunni politicians are running on other slates. With two successful elections completed, and a third coming up next month, the Iraqi people are proving their determination to build a democracy united against extremism and violence. (Applause.)
The work ahead involves great risk for Iraqis and for American and coalition forces. We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in this war on terror. Each of these men and women left grieving families and left loved ones at home. Each of these patriots left a legacy that will allow generations of fellow Americans to enjoy the blessings of liberty. Each loss of life is heartbreaking. And the best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission and to lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. (Applause.)
The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we've ever faced, unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.
Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing, with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots or resistance fighters -- they're murderers at war with the Iraqi people themselves.
In contrast, the elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress -- from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the ratification of a constitution -- in the space of two-and-a-half years. (Applause.)
I have said, as Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down. And with our help, the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with each passing month. At the time of our Fallujah operations a year ago, there were only a few Iraqi army battalions in combat. Today, there are nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces. (Applause.) General David Petraeus says, "Iraqis are in the fight. They're fighting and dying for their country, and they're fighting increasingly well." This progress is not easy, but it is steady. And no fair-minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people. (Applause.)
And our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.
While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)
The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)
The fifth element of our strategy in the war on terror is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. This is difficult, and it's a long-term project, yet there is no alternative to it. Our future and the future of the region are linked. If the broader Middle East is left to grow in bitterness, if countries remain in misery while radicals stir the resentment of millions, then that part of the world will be a source of endless conflict and mounting danger, in our generation and for the next.
If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and participation of free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow and eventually end. By standing for hope and freedom of others, we make our own freedom more secure.
America is making this stand in practical ways. We're encouraging our friends in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to take the path of reform, to strengthen their own societies in the fight against terror by respecting the rights and choices of their own people. We're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes, because we know that the dissidents of today will be the democratic leaders of tomorrow. We're making our case through public diplomacy -- stating clearly and confidently our belief in self-determination, and the rule of law, and religious freedom, and equal rights for women -- beliefs that are right and true in every land and in every culture. (Applause.)
As we do our part to confront radicalism and to protect the United States, we know that a lot of vital work will be done within the Islamic world itself. And the work is beginning. Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all of humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all humanity. (Applause.) After the attacks July -- on July 7th in London, an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, "Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim, nor a religious person." The time has come for responsible Islamic leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits Islam for political ends, and defiles a noble faith. (Applause.)
Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. Everywhere we've engaged the fight against extremism, Muslim allies have stood up and joined the fight, becoming partners in this vital cause. Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda in their country. These brave citizens know the stakes -- the survival of their own liberty, the future of their own region, the justice and humanity of their own tradition -- and the United States of America is proud to stand beside them. (Applause.)
With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet this fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle -- between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision -- and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure -- until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent -- until the day that free men and women defeat them.
We don't know the course of our own struggle will take, or the sacrifices that might lie ahead. We do know, however, that the defense of freedom is worth our sacrifice, we do know the love of freedom is the mightiest force of history, and we do know the cause of freedom will once again prevail. (Applause.)
Thank you for coming. May God bless our veterans, may God bless our troops in harm's way, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
"Oh my God! Oh my God! Is it possible that Arabs are killing Arabs, Muslims killing Muslims? For what did they do that?"
Seems the terrorists bombs can't tell the difference between infadels and muslims.
"The world has to know that this has nothing to do with Islam,"
Oh, no! Heaven Forbid!
Despite being the supposed targets of the attacks, Westerners escaped their brunt, as most of the casualties were Jordanian.
Of course the loss of innocent life is tragic; regardless of all other factors. The Schadenfreude comes from the fact that a majority Muslim country took the brunt of a Muslim terroist attack and that Muslims took to the streets shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!"
I take no joy in the fact that innocent lives were lost, but I cannot help but think this story is about much more than the loss of innocent lives.
This WMD story doesn't really include all that much more than I put forth here, but it was written by a professional writer.
I especially liked the run down:
When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news. But when he detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last October, few took notice. Among Kay's revelations, which officials tell Insight have been amplified in subsequent inspections in recent weeks:
***A prison laboratory complex that may have been used for human testing of BW agents and "that Iraqi officials working to prepare the U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N." Why was Saddam interested in testing biological-warfare agents on humans if he didn't have a biological-weapons program?
***"Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'"
***New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
***A line of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, "not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit."
***"Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N."
***"Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] - well beyond the 150-kilometer-range limit [93 miles] imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1,000-kilometer range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara [Turkey], Cairo [Egypt] and Abu Dhabi [United Arab Emirates]."
***In addition, through interviews with Iraqi scientists, seized documents and other evidence, the ISG learned the Iraqi government had made "clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer-range [807 miles] ballistic missiles - probably the No Dong - 300-kilometer-range [186 miles] antiship cruise missiles and other prohibited military equipment," Kay reported.
In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer, revealed that the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad, which International Atomic Energy Agency spokesman Mark Gwozdecky acknowledged to Insight had been intended for "a clandestine nuclear-weapons program."
On Dec. 24, 2002, nearly three months before fighting in Iraq began, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accused Saddam Hussein's regime of transferring key materials for his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs to Syria in convoys of 18-wheel trucks to hide them from U.N. weapons inspectors. "There is information we are verifying, but we are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria," Sharon told Channel Two television in Israel.
In May 2003, just as major combat operations in Iraq were winding down, new reports surfaced in Israel, this time alleging that convoys of Iraqi water tankers carrying WMD components crossed the border into Syria repeatedly between Jan. 10 and March 10. The tankers reportedly were met by Syrian special forces and escorted to the heroin poppy fields of a Syrian-controlled area in Lebanon's Bekáa Valley, where their contents were dumped into specially prepared pits and buried....
Shoshana Bryen regularly escorts groups of retired U.S. military flag officers (admirals and generals) to Israel for meetings with senior Israeli political and military leaders, as well as intelligence officials. "We went to Israel just before the war and just after," she tells Insight. "Both times, Israeli intelligence officials told us, yes, WMD were definitely in Iraq, and that they had been sent to Syria." The Bush administration was trying to downplay these reports, she believes, "because if Iraqi weapons are in Syria, we're going to have to do something about it, and they don't want another war."