Normally, I despise Tom DeLay - I mean, I really find him to be a despicable, hypocritical SOB. I truly hate the man. But for once, I'm in 100% agreement with him on an issue. His speechwriters deserve an "A" on this, too. Enjoy. THE IMPERATIVE FOR ACTION Prepared Remarks by Hon. Tom DeLay (R-TX) The Houston Forum, 21 August 2002 Every generation will be tested. Every generation will be called to defend our freedom. And every generation must summon the courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement. I'm here today to make the case for liberating Iraq. Until Saddam Hussein's regime topples, our national security will suffer an unwise and unacceptable risk. Saddam must go, and the sooner, the better. President Bush clearly stated the policy of the United States: Regime change in Iraq. And the longer we wait, the greater the danger. The foundation of American society rests on a set of enduring, defining values: Faith in God, the sanctity of human life, the existence of right and wrong, and the certain knowledge that we're all ultimately accountable for our actions. From our commitment to these timeless truths flow the concepts that we define as democratic values: Free speech; a free press, free elections, the rule of law; and the right to change our government peacefully. These are the bulwarks of liberty. America has a solemn obligation to stand with countries that share these principles. And we must also aid the brave men and women who are fighting to shed the chains of despotism by lifting their peoples to self-government..... The cause we champion transcends race and religion. And the greatness of our democracy is demonstrated by the diversity of the people we liberate. We lead the forces of good in the battle between freedom and fanaticism. The most important step in the war against terrorism wasn`t our military defeat of the Taliban or our disruption of Al Qaeda. Following years of temporizing and avoidance, the critical turning point in this conflict was President Bush`s decision to focus moral clarity on the real threats facing America. He said you`re either with us or you`re with the terrorists. And by properly defining this battle, President Bush won broad support from the American people. They understand what`s at stake. And they strongly back the President`s campaign to destroy the coalition of terror before it strikes again. In his remarks at West Point, the President forged a national security strategic doctrine for the post- Cold War era. No longer, he asserted, could America trust the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment to protect us from gathering dangers. Given the threats we face as a free society, America must preempt threats before they damage our national interests. This concept of preemption is the key to victory over terrorism. Much of the opposition to the preemption doctrine is nothing but a campaign to forestall action. It's driven by a congenital mistrust of American principles and a consistent hostility to American action. These apologists for idleness would have us believe that consensus is a first principle. But if we can`t agree that terrorists murdering innocent civilians should be actively opposed, this path offers nothing but immobilizing confusion. While the once great nations of Europe abdicate their responsibilities, danger grows. The spread of devastating weapons accelerates. And support by terrorism's state sponsors continues beneath the scenes. Despite the expanding capabilities of terror regimes and the growth of evil organizations, Europe peddles excuses for inaction. They demand we accept consensus as a first principle. They wish to direct the enterprise, but retreat seems to be their only war plan. Make no mistake about it, we're at war and we don`t have time to dawdle. This new conflict offers no margin for error. Unlike past wars, when we took no casualties within our borders, if terrorists and rogue regimes dictate the terms, the frontlines of the war on terror will devastate our leading cities. The American people have thought this through and they've decided that the forces of terror must be destroyed. After last September, America recognized that we`re locked in a battle with evil that could take decades. Despite the certain heavy costs in lives and treasure, Americans support an active campaign to destroy international terrorism. They`re with the President because they intuitively understand that we have no choice. The question is not whether to go to war, for war has already been thrust upon us. The only choice is between victory and defeat. And let's be clear about this, we must choose victory, a victory that cannot be secured at a bargaining table. Knowing all this, we favor the hard path of action over the hollow comfort of complacency. This fight is no longer about reacting to the attacks on New York and Washington. It's about stopping killers from robbing more widows and orphans of their loved ones. It`s about preventing attacks on Chicago, Miami, Seattle, and yes, Houston. Who doubts that terrorists seek tools to do grave harm to the United States? And, once a madman like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, there`s no telling when an American city will be targeted at his direction or with his support. And so we must move ahead. Despite weeks of feverish hand wringing over the refusal by many to acknowledge the overwhelming supposed missing body of evidence against Iraq's dictator, the case is self-evident. Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man in the world today. We say that because he`s used chemical weapons against his own people. He`s invaded his neighbors. And he concentrates the energy of his regime on developing and manufacturing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.... I defy the architects of complacency, to explain to America, a single instance in which a strategy of international neglect tamed a militaristic regime. It's never worked before--it won't work now. Saddam must be replaced. And it raises a larger issue: Defeating Iraq is far from a diversion in the war on terror. Defeating Saddam Hussein is a defining measure of whether we will wage the war on terrorism fully and effectively..... The idea that UN inspections can keep nuclear weapons from Saddam is a fraud. His regime makes a science of denial, deception, and deceit. Iraq has grown adept at burying its weapons programs deep underground and hiding laboratories within the civilian infrastructure of his country.... But those who counsel granting Saddam the latest in an endless cycle of last chances are the same consorts of complacency who foolishly opposed liberating Kuwait. Their reluctance to confront evil only empowered Saddam to prowl the Middle East, aiding terrorist groups and developing weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong twelve years ago. They were wrong to claim that an impotent inspection regime could keep terror weapons from Saddam. And they`re wrong now.... President Bush will come to Congress before Saddam's hour of reckoning. And he`ll decide when it`s time for action. Our commander-in-chief's timetable must be dictated solely by national security considerations. Other concerns are simply irrelevant. But when that hour arrives, I'll lead the effort to provide President Bush the unified support of the House of Representatives..... As vexing as our problems are abroad, the impertinence of some government officials within the executive branch only magnifies our difficulties. Debate within a democracy is vital to freedom. We welcome passionate advocates with firmly held views. But men and women serving within an administration must take their instructions from the President, the commander-in-chief, and they must carry them out. The U.S. State Department would do well to remember that it answers to the President of the United States, not the European Union. The threats terrorism poses to every free society should naturally create a broad coalition dedicated to decisive action and the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors. Unfortunately, among freedom`s natural defenders, moral clarity is in short supply. Even as other powers evade their own duty to safeguard freedom and confront tyranny, we must stand firm. The nations across the Atlantic, countries with ample experience in the perils of appeasement are unwilling or unable to summon the resolve to confront gathering evil. These countries reflexively oppose any exercise of American power unless it`s summoned to liberate the besieged capitals of a vanquished Europe. Europe stands paralyzed because European leaders seem unable to grasp a very fundamental principle: There's no moral equivalence between those defending freedom and the terrorists and tyrants who seek to deny it--first to their own people, later to others.... Toppling Saddam would, they say, "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Ladies and gentlemen, these critics are dead wrong. Removing Saddam from power and liberating the Iraqi people would do more to advance the war against terror than any step we've taken yet. Removing Saddam would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state sponsor of terror: "Shape up, because the price of subsidizing terror is now more than you can afford...." We would be fools to require American standards of criminal evidence in making the case against state sponsors of terror including Saddam Hussein`s Iraq. I offer my full support to applying the Bush preemption doctrine to Iraq. The President needs to know that the Congress stands behind his campaign to protect the American people. As Americans, we`re not governed by fear and appeasement. As Americans, we inherit a higher obligation than placating contemporary opinion. As Americans, we reject the illusion of greener pastures offered by moral equivocators. As Americans, we offer unceasing hostility to terrorists, tyrants, and every system of oppression. Because, as Americans, we`re born to a special destiny. We won`t evade the defense of freedom. We won`t take counsel of our fears. We won`t seek shelter in the naïve comfort of misguided hopes. And we won`t shrink from the mission before us. For in the last analysis, we`ll answer, not to the fickle whims of the international community, but to posterity. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=02-F_29
THIS is what I'm saying. If this administration or any other administration does nothing...and IF we are attacked with some chemical, biological or nuclear weapon that can be traced to Iraq...that administration, and our generation, will never be forgiven for its inaction. Never.
When has Saddam Hussein ever in his EXISTENCE done anything against the United States?? Just a question. I think we need to stop fueling votes by attacking anybody and demonizing everyone in sight or doing the bidding of Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The Irony of calling Iraq a "terror" in the concept of religious extremism that we note today is that he actually had a reward on Osama Bin Laden's head before the U.S. attacked Iraq. I read an email in Spanish that had been sent around through South America, Central America and the latin world, that basically said about September 11th "Como se siente Yanqui??" "How does it feel, Yankee?" It hurt reading this about how our over 70 invasions into South and Central American nations and backing of Dictatorships. Even nullifying or helping Coup's to overthrow democratically elected officials like in Argentina over 20 years ago. How did we go from being the beacon of the world and the standard to which freedom, justice and liberty are measured to a sign of tyranny and oppression. It hurts me to see so many around the world have so much disdain for our foreign policy. The U.S is a powerful nation because of the free, capitalistic nature of the country which fuels the engine that is the US Economy. When animosity towards the US continues to grow and grow, that will have future affects on our economy and US corporations thereby weakening our country. This is a bit unrelated to Treeman's post, but I just question some of our policies effects in the long run.
The truth is that anyone talks about "Chemical and Biological weapons" and people think of some high-tech lab and the movie outbreak, while the truth is if a person with the flu sneezes and it is cultured it is considered a biological weapon. Those words are used to scare the public, because they have no actual army strength to do anything. Just poking a dead horse.
Ramsi Youssef, mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, was an Iraqi Intelligence agent. In 1994 (I believe) Saddam tried to execute Bush Sr. In 1990-1 he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, thereby threatening the world's (and our) supply of oil, which could have had a cataclysmic effect upon our economy. He regularly threatens us with war and terrorist attacks in public speeches. In fact, according to him we are still at war - it never ended as far as he's concerned. Uhh.. I'm not Jewish. Neither is Bush. The evil Zionist menace is not behind every foreign policy imperative, ya know. Are you trying to argue that he's not a "terror"? Or that because he is generally more secular in his brutal and single-minded pursuit of power that he's not a "terrorist"? At any rate, we know for a fact that he funds terror groups both in the occupied territories and abroad. We also know that he's been training Al Qaeda in the north of Iraq (the "Kurdish areas"), likely in the use of chemical weapons, so it would appear that he's set aside his differences with Osama and his buddies. He can easily use their fundamentalist urges as a tool of his own. Only through them can he hit us and keep his fingerprints off of an operation. Also, do a search on a place by the name of Salman Pak. Then return here and tell me that you A) are sure the Iraqis didn't have a hand in 9/11, and B) are not state-spopnsors of terrorism. Uhh... You're not still in the "Our foreign policy caused 9/11" camp, are you? Please, please don't start in with that garbage. As far as Iraq goes though, doesn't Saddam's foreign policy probably bear a significantly larger chunk of the responsibility pie for the current situation than our own?
OK... I will give you a chance to retract this silly statement before I really pile it on, Khan. Ask any Iranian who was involved in the 80-88 war if there's anything to the use of chemical or biological weapons. Ask them if it's all just a sham. And for some insight into how much more sophisticated - and deadly - a true chem/boi warfare program is than "culturing flu", I would suggest a book by the name of Biohazard, by Ken Alibek. The potential for destruction is absolutely enormous. Shockingly enormous. There is absolutely no *truth* to your "culturing flu" analogy. None. BTW, if you'd like I can send you some info on the Iraqi chem/bio weapons programs. I can even send you satellite photos of some of their chemical weapons facilities. They are rather large and complex - far more so than would be required to "culture flu".
Khan: Here's an article on the Al-Qaeda-Saddam link that we've started to see emerge in recent weeks; I can probably dig up more for you on it if you want (tho I'm leaving Monday, soo...). But taking this, the recent "discovery" of Abu Nidal's bullet-riddled body in Baghdad, and the revelations from defectors about what is going on at Salman Pak, there is absolutely no denying that Saddam's got his fingers deeply entwined within the underworld of Islamic terrorism. IMHO, a state with WMD that is willing to house our publicly declared enemies, with Saddam friggen Hussein at the helm (finger on trigger), is a recipe for disaster. We cannot afford inaction. Saddam and Terror By WILLIAM SAFIRE Brent Scowcroft and his leave-Saddam-alone acolytes on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board insist "there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations." But here are two names of intense current interest to American counterterror agents. One is Fowzi Saad al-Obeidi, an Iraqi intelligence officer who supposedly defected from Saddam Hussein's ranks but whose family continues to enjoy privileges in Baghdad. Under the name of Abu Zubair, Lieutenant Saad headed a force of some 120 Arab terrorists backed by about 400 renegade Kurds who were remnants of a defeated separatist group. Their "Supporters of Islam" organization was sent by Saddam into the portion of northern Iraq under U.S. aerial protection to assassinate the democratic Kurdish leadership and to establish crude chemical warfare facilities in remote villages near the Iranian border. The other name is of a senior Al Qaeda commander, Abu Omer al-Kurdi. Known at the Qaeda headquarters in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, by the name of Rafid Fatah, this bin Laden aide helped train many of these infiltrators and accompanied them on their mission. Several of their attempts to kill the Kurdish leaders Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani or their deputies late last year, with the latest strike at a top aide just last week, were bloodily repulsed, with a score of the terrorists captured — including the Saddam agent, Saad, and the Qaeda operative, al-Kurdi. However, the terrorist mission to set up facilities to weaponize poisons in Iraqi Kurdistan's mountainous equivalent of Afghanistan's Tora Bora has been more successful. One produces a form of cyanide cream that kills on contact. A shipment of this rudimentary panic-spreader, produced by what interrogators say is a Qaeda-Saddam joint venture, was recently intercepted in Turkey on its way to terror cells in the West. The chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction, but for individuals who touch it — 'tis enough, 'twill do. Such verification of data obtained from the captured terrorists awakened C.I.A. bureaucrats who for nearly a year waved reporters away from evidence of Qaeda-Iraqi links lest it justify U.S. action. Belatedly, a C.I.A. team interrogated some of the terrorists held in northern Iraq — comparing what they found with information gleaned from Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere. Even religiously motivated terrorists crack in dismay at how much the interrogator already knows. When added to prisoners' family details provided by Kurdish sources, the scope of our knowledge led captives in Kurdistan to talk about poison production and Iraqi links because they figured there was little left to hide. The new information has changed much intelligence analysis. The C.I.A. has even stopped discrediting reports from Czech intelligence about a different point of Qaeda-Saddam contact: the meeting between the Sept. 11 hijackers' leader, Mohamed Atta, and a top Saddam spymaster in Prague. But the new, non-scant evidence of Saddam's close connection with terrorists seeking to kill Kurds under our air protection and to export crude poison weaponry poses an immediate operational problem: Should we send in Special Forces to find and root out the hidden facilities near the Iraq-Iran border? The answer apparently is "Not now." Why? For the same reason we have not sent antitank weapons and gas masks to the 70,000 Kurdish fighters eager to join an American effort to topple the Iraqi dictator: It might provide a provocation for Saddam to take out the lightly armed Kurds before America has forces in place to launch a coordinated assault, probably early next year. Let's not pretend we must "make the case" that Saddam personally directed 9/11. The need to strike at an aggressive despot before he gains the power to blackmail us with the horrific weapons he is building and hiding is apparent to most Americans, including those who will bear the brunt of the fight. But it would make sense for him to use his new weaponry through terrorist cutouts. That is why it is worthwhile to discover and expose the likelihood of Saddam's previous and present connections to mass murder. That is why people who oppose the finishing of this fight — on strategic, self-justifying, political or pacifist grounds — should open their minds to the signs that terror's most dangerous supporter can be found in Baghdad. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/opinion/22SAFI.html
All Bush needs to do is to release some of the info that they have(?) on Iraqi connection to 9/11 and we will have plenty of support at home and more support abroad for a move on Iraq. If they establish a clear link between the two then Saddam will be gone, with or without international support. I would like to see some more information before we hit Iraq though.
It will come, Sonny. It will come when he feels that the time is right. Speaking on the military's part, we remember painfully the lessons of Vietnam - one of which is get the public on your side first. Our brass will not allow him to get us into a war without informing the public first on the reasons. This I guarantee. Some of you may have conceptions about the military being this juggernaut that just wants to gain power by decieving America into launching a war, so that the Pentagon can take control. I would only ask those of you who hold that preconception to put a little faith into an organization that has defended you for over 200 years, and to remember that if anyone dies because of our misadventures, we will be the first ones to go. We are always the first to die... We certainly have a stake in our own well-being, even if you do not believe that we are interested in safeguarding your own - and we are. That is our primary mission. In fact, there has been some publically vocallized concern from military corners to a war in Iraq. Far from beating down such concerns, I would encourage it. War is a nasty friggen business, and the American public needs to understand what it's getting itself into - we would be remiss in not voicing such caution. But in this case it's akin to the warnings you see at public swimming pools - "No running, Swim at your own risk", that sort of thing. The risk is there, but considering all factors, the risk is acceptable. And in this case, we have no choice but to go swimming. There will be bodybags. Americans will lose their lives (although probably not nearly as many as the doomsayers predict; I predict less than 200 overall). But Americans are going to die liberating Iraq. Just as Americans have died in Afghanistan... It is a small #, but to the families the burden is unimaginable. We might as well have lost the war as far as they're concerned. A nation cannot enter into any war lightly. Emotions can be tempered by such statements as "our casualties will be very light", but the gravity is the same: people are going to die. Unfortunately, many more Iraqi servicemen are likely to lose their lives than US servicemen. Many - potentially, a great many - Iraqis will die. The only consolation I can offer is that we - the US military - are actively concerned about how we can mitigate such loss of life, as those Iraqis will be vital to actually securing the country in the aftermath (particularly against Shiite/Iranian interests). We are actually concerned more with how we can *avoid killing* Iraqi soldiers than we are with how to kill them... This is probably the first time in history that any army has ever worried about that. How to kill as few of the enemy as possible... But this will be a war - the largest one since 1991, it will make Afghanistan look like an exercise in simplicity - and there will be exceedingly nasty elements to it, as there is in every war. All I can say is that on our side, we are actively concerned about limiting its nastiness (one reason why it's taking so long - this is probably the most thoroughly planned war in history), and that we will act with compassion on the battlefield. And I am confident that our President - my boss - will explain everything to those of you who are not fully cognizant of and comfortable with the situation. If he doesn't then he will be abdicating a part of his own responsibility. For now, I'll just leave it at "It's a necessary action". And advise that the information you seek is actually already out there, you just have to ask. But all will become clear soon enough...
I can't let treeman fight this one alone. This view of affairs is bigotted, patronizing, inflammatory, simplistic and -most importantly- inaccurate. Israel is our ally, but THIS has nothing to do with that. Hussein is an expansionist. He has proven it in the past. He does not have the conventional might to do it so he is quiet as he builds his chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal. Then he will show his expansionist self once again. It was ok for us to stop communist expansionism...but not now??? You are talking about the most unstable "democracies" in the history of the planet. Those elections were free and actually democratic just like I'm the Pope. We sent in the military to ensure REAL free elections in the future and to put a damper on the trade of narcotics out of the region. So I could give a damn what they think. How? How will this happen? I guess the French won't buy California wine. Oh what a loss. The products that the Europeans buy from us are those that they have no really good non-US substitutes for. Are you taking medication we should know about? They are culturing smallpox and anthrax. These biological agents properly packaged can kill thousands with a great deal of speed. The flu will never do that. In order to deliver the agents you put it into a BOMB. A bomb that when it goes off will kill people instantly. To make the analogy you made means that you either are so blinded by your allegiances (religious or ideological) or you have no real understanding or grasp for the particulars of weapons of mass destruction. Your analogy is simply incredulous.
Ack... There is no easy way to explain it. Or... Freedom! FREEDOM!!! Freedom for the people of Iraq to choose their own government! Their own way of life! And in this case, we can be fairly confident that the choice won't be militant Islam. What a friggen tragedy that we've been suppressing our only real natural ally (besides Jordan and Israel) in the region - after all these years? That whole "freedom" thing is really underrated, IMHO. I just can't help but think that after a decade of crushing sanctions, they have the innate right to choose. As if they didn't before... Why in God's name has it taken so long for this to even become an issue within the public discourse? Let the Iraqis decide what form of government they want - without Saddam's security forces telling them how to vote. What a friggen concept... FREEDOM!
Damn right treeman. This is about liberating a people as much as it is about international security. You and the rest of our servicemen will be in my thoughts and prayers when the fighting in Iraq starts. Godspeed.
Thanks. Although the battle for Baghdad is actually already well underway... The shooting just hasn't started yet. I'm probably going to miss it all unless I get a second deployment (not unlikely for my MOS). But as it is... Stateside. Nice & cushy as far as things go. We've got plenty of troops who don't have that luxury, though. Send them your prayers, they need it more than I do.
I don't get involved with political discusion much. In fact, I don't ever on this BBS. I just read to confirm my feelings or find reasons to change those feelings. But this is waaay to important. Not only am I a proud American, I'm also a citizen of this planet looking for global peace. In either case I will fight a hard battle and die for it. So, treeman and refman, when it comes to it, know I'll quietly sling my weapon and march side by side with you guys on any front. RR
How does helping violent military dictators promote democracy and free elections? In regards to Saddam...we shouldn't mess with him because he is cool. Anyone who has seen his murals were he is depicted as an Assyrian king in a lion hunt knows this. The Assyrians were one of the greatest military machines in history. All Saddam has to do is get in his chariot and lead and then the US would suffer. The lion hunt scenes act as a symbol of his superiority to all things on Earth...not quite God-like because the Assyrians really had no use for God. His mastery is only over that which exists on Earth, but that actually makes him more powerful because his dominion is more tangible. He cares about his people. He had some wonderful buildings constructed in the Assyrian style - with his name stamped on the bricks, as required. We all know that if a ruler builds things with their name on the bricks it means that they care. Kind of like mom putting a smilie face on your sandwich. So the moral of the story is that you shoul always start a war without telling people while waiting for public support to be large enough to where you can tell people that you are starting a war? Them politiks sure are confusing. Lol, Refman...French won't buy California wine. Hee hee...all two of them that do will cause a huge deficit once they stop. Now, if the French stopped selling us their wine, I would have to move to France.
I'm afraid my protective goggles aren't strong enough to withstand all the testosterone in this thread. Must swim to safety...
Hey Treeman! It’s been a long time. How did basic training go? Any word on what’s next for you, assuming that you can tell? As for the piece, ay carumba! Assuming this isn’t a joke, I’ll wade in. I won’t be taking your side on this one, but I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you. >Every generation will be tested. Yes. >Every generation will be called to defend our freedom. Every generation will be called to account for how they have conducted themselves. The phrase “defend our freedom” has been used by numerous unsavoury individuals and organisations from neo-Nazis to terrorists themselves, so it’s a very poor choice of words. It brings up some very contradictory images. >And every generation must summon the courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would >mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement. Baseless, false and misleading insinuations. Only a fool simply disregards other’s opinions. These are the words of a man who is afraid to justify his position. >I'm here today to make the case for liberating Iraq. A noble proposition. Of course we know that emancipation is a process, not merely a dramatic act. It is not a simplistic process. One thing that is obvious is that removing Saddam Hussein alone will not accomplish it. >Until Saddam Hussein's regime topples, our national security will suffer an unwise and unacceptable risk. >Saddam must go, and the sooner, the better. Blatantly false, even foolish. As Treeman himself has previously pointed out, Saddam alone is not the problem. Even removing his whole regime, an extremely difficult proposition in itself, will do little to “liberate Iraq.” It will only create a huge power vacuum, a vacuum that will be filled by another power structure. The key to any intervention into Iraq is ensuring that the ensuing power structure is in fact one that “liberates” Iraq, and not one that is just as bad as the present one, or possibly worse. Intervening without a clear plan for how this would be accomplished, a plan with a high probability of success, would be foolish in the extreme, unless an attack with WMD was imminent and forced a premature intervention. >President Bush clearly stated the policy of the United States: Regime change in Iraq. And the longer we >wait, the greater the danger. Again, way too simplistic, and essentially false. >The foundation of American society rests on a set of enduring, defining values: Faith in God, the sanctity >of human life, the existence of right and wrong, and the certain knowledge that we're all ultimately >accountable for our actions. I’ll ignore the blatant exploitation of the name of God for the purpose of political propaganda and address the other points. Having great respect for the sanctity of human life, it would obviously be imperative to carefully consider an action that would undoubtedly result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Rash, hasty, reactionary actions are not acceptable. After all, we are all ultimately be accountable for our actions. Especially considering that Hussein was previously supported by the US, a decision that looks quite unwise in our present context, failure to exercise due diligence and good judgement in this situation would be inexcusable. >From our commitment to these timeless truths flow the concepts that we define as democratic values: Free >speech; a free press, free elections, the rule of law; and the right to change our government peacefully. >These are the bulwarks of liberty. >America has a solemn obligation to stand with countries that share these principles. And we must also aid >the brave men and women who are fighting to shed the chains of despotism by lifting their peoples to self- >government..... Again, “emancipation is a process, not merely a dramatic act.” (I don’t have that worded quite right and I can’t remember who said it. Anybody know?) We need to be clear on what the process toward emancipation will be, or the act alone will all too likely be pointless. **** >The cause we champion transcends race and religion. And the greatness of our democracy is demonstrated >by the diversity of the people we liberate. We lead the forces of good in the battle between freedom and >fanaticism. That’s just creepy. >The most important step in the war against terrorism wasn`t our military defeat of the Taliban or our >disruption of Al Qaeda. >Following years of temporizing and avoidance, the critical turning point in this conflict was President >Bush`s decision to focus moral clarity on the real threats facing America. Huh? “Moral clarity”!? That sounds like a line the terrorists would use. Creepy. >He said you`re either with us or you`re with the terrorists. And by properly defining this battle, President >Bush won broad support from the American people. Highly offensive to all non-Americans. Simple minded in the extreme. There is a familiar ring to this kind of desperate rhetoric though, don’t you think? >They understand what`s at stake. And they strongly back the President`s campaign to destroy the coalition >of terror before it strikes again. **** >In his remarks at West Point, the President forged a national security strategic doctrine for the post- Cold >War era. >No longer, he asserted, could America trust the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment to >protect us from gathering dangers. >Given the threats we face as a free society, America must preempt threats before they damage our national >interests. >This concept of preemption is the key to victory over terrorism. Yes, but this preemption CANNOT be accomplished predominately by force. If we have learned nothing else from the Middle East situation we have learned that violence does not stop violence. There may be instances where force is needed, but in general force escalates the problems, it does not eliminate them. **** >Much of the opposition to the preemption doctrine is nothing but a campaign to forestall action. It's driven >by a congenital mistrust of American principles and a consistent hostility to American action. Paranoid. Fear mongering. Obfuscating. Baseless, unsupported, cowardly statement. >These apologists for idleness would have us believe that consensus is a first principle. But if we can`t >agree that terrorists murdering innocent civilians should be actively opposed, this path offers nothing but >immobilizing confusion. Which terrorists is he talking about? The Palestinians? The Israelis? Innocent civilians have been killed Afghanistan. Are the allies terrorists? It’s all so simple for Mr. Delay though. He’s right and anybody with a contrary opinion is wrong. “And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don’t know …” Bonus points for anyone who can name the song. >While the once great nations of Europe abdicate their responsibilities, danger grows. The spread of >devastating weapons accelerates. >And support by terrorism's state sponsors continues beneath the scenes. >Despite the expanding capabilities of terror regimes and the growth of evil organizations, Europe peddles >excuses for inaction. Evil is a strange word for this guy to use. I see nothing about his attitude that I would consider moral. >They demand we accept consensus as a first principle. They wish to direct the enterprise, but retreat seems >to be their only war plan. Untrue. >Make no mistake about it, we're at war and we don`t have time to dawdle. >This new conflict offers no margin for error. Unlike past wars, when we took no casualties within our >borders, if terrorists and rogue regimes dictate the terms, the frontlines of the war on terror will devastate >our leading cities. Who is suggesting that the terrorist should dictate the terms? Nobody. >The American people have thought this through and they've decided that the forces of terror must be >destroyed. There is no thinking in this piece. This is pure propaganda. **** >After last September, America recognized that we`re locked in a battle with evil that could take decades. >Despite the certain heavy costs in lives and treasure, Americans support an active campaign to destroy >international terrorism. They`re with the President because they intuitively understand that we have no >choice. Treasure?! Terrorism will not be destroyed by force. Anybody who thinks otherwise is utterly ignorant of recent history. Terrorism is fuelled by hatred and violence. Force will be a tool, but not the primary tool. It MUST be used very judiciously, or it will only serve to escalate the problem. >The question is not whether to go to war, for war has already been thrust upon us. The only choice is >between victory and defeat. And let's be clear about this, we must choose victory, a victory that cannot be >secured at a bargaining table. Lame, lame, propaganda, coupled with gross ignorance. Victory WILL NOT be secured by force. Is this guy illiterate? Doesn’t he watch the news? Does he have no clue what’s been happening in the world the last couple of years? >Knowing all this, we favor the hard path of action over the hollow comfort of complacency. >This fight is no longer about reacting to the attacks on New York and Washington. It's about stopping >killers from robbing more widows and orphans of their loved ones. It`s about preventing attacks on >Chicago, Miami, Seattle, and yes, Houston. >Who doubts that terrorists seek tools to do grave harm to the United States? And, once a madman like >Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, there`s no telling when an American city will be targeted at his >direction or with his support. >And so we must move ahead. Despite weeks of feverish hand wringing over the refusal by many to >acknowledge the overwhelming supposed missing body of evidence against Iraq's dictator, the case is >self-evident. Self-evident? “Plus-good, double-plus-good…” (Bonus points if you can name that song.) This is a pure con job. Low grade, propaganda. But what’s the point? There’s some political angle here I’m not following. >Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man in the world today. We say that because he`s used chemical >weapons against his own people. He`s invaded his neighbors. He is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. >And he concentrates the energy of his regime on developing and manufacturing nuclear, biological, and >chemical weapons.... **** >I defy the architects of complacency, to explain to America, a single instance in which a strategy of >international neglect tamed a militaristic regime. Oh please! This feeble drivel is going to make me wretch! >It's never worked before--it won't work now. Saddam must be replaced. >And it raises a larger issue: Defeating Iraq is far from a diversion in the war on terror. Defeating Saddam >Hussein is a defining measure of whether we will wage the war on terrorism fully and effectively..... Defeating Hussein himself is almost completely irrelevant. Liberating Iraq, truly liberating Iraq, would be a very good start toward changing the attitudes in the ME that fuel terrorism. If we fail to do this then it won’t matter much that we took out Iraq’s WMD, because someone else will just pick up where Hussein left off. If you don’t get to the root, the weed still grows. **** >The idea that UN inspections can keep nuclear weapons from Saddam is a fraud. His regime makes a >science of denial, deception, and deceit. >Iraq has grown adept at burying its weapons programs deep underground and hiding laboratories within >the civilian infrastructure of his country.... **** >But those who counsel granting Saddam the latest in an endless cycle of last chances are the same >consorts of complacency who foolishly opposed liberating Kuwait. Untrue. >Their reluctance to confront evil only empowered Saddam to prowl the Middle East, aiding terrorist >groups and developing weapons of mass destruction. Huh? It was the coalition force that let him off the hook. And this was not necessarily a bad thing given the conditions that existed at the time, but that’s another discussion. >They were wrong twelve years ago. They were wrong to claim that an impotent inspection regime could >keep terror weapons from Saddam. And they`re wrong now.... “They” would include the US. But who cares about the truth, right? **** >President Bush will come to Congress before Saddam's hour of reckoning. And he`ll decide when it`s >time for action. >Our commander-in-chief's timetable must be dictated solely by national security considerations. Other >concerns are simply irrelevant. >But when that hour arrives, I'll lead the effort to provide President Bush the unified support of the House >of Representatives..... This guy is an elected representative!?!?!? Say it ain’t so! Unbelievable. Is his constituency composed exclusively of trailer parks? WOW! … **** >The threats terrorism poses to every free society should naturally create a broad coalition dedicated to >decisive action and the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors. I thought he was against coalitions? Is he just making it up as he goes along? At any rate, there should be a coalition. There needs to be one, given that force alone will not solve the problem of terrorism. >Unfortunately, among freedom`s natural defenders, moral clarity is in short supply. Even as other powers >evade their own duty to safeguard freedom and confront tyranny, we must stand firm. Creepy! >The nations across the Atlantic, countries with ample experience in the perils of appeasement are >unwilling or unable to summon the resolve to confront gathering evil. I have no doubt whatsoever that they understand the situation infinitely better than this guy does. >These countries reflexively oppose any exercise of American power unless it`s summoned to liberate the >besieged capitals of a vanquished Europe. More BS. >Europe stands paralyzed because European leaders seem unable to grasp a very fundamental principle: >There's no moral equivalence between those defending freedom and the terrorists and tyrants who seek to >deny it--first to their own people, later to others.... Huh? I think he’s slipping into delirium. **** >Toppling Saddam would, they say, "seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist >campaign we have undertaken." Now he’s hearing voices. >Ladies and gentlemen, these critics are dead wrong. These imaginary critics that live in his head are dead wrong. Nice. >Removing Saddam from power and liberating the Iraqi people would do more to advance the war against >terror than any step we've taken yet. I seriously doubt that he even understands the concept of liberation. He has shown no indication of it. >Removing Saddam would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state sponsor of terror: >"Shape up, because the price of subsidizing terror is now more than you can afford...." The 9/11 terrorists were in the US. They were Saudis, Egyptians. What state are you going to attack? This man has a profound ignorance of the fundamentals of the problem. **** >We would be fools to require American standards of criminal evidence in making the case against state >sponsors of terror including Saddam Hussein`s Iraq. >I offer my full support to applying the Bush preemption doctrine to Iraq. The President needs to know that >the Congress stands behind his campaign to protect the American people. As someone wisely pointed out in a past thread I didn’t get a chance to respond to, morality and moral authority are keys to this situation. Whenever the US has taken the moral low road (Hussein, Pinochet, Iran Contra, etc.) it comes back on them. Whenever they take the high road (Gulf War, Yugoslavia) the results are generally good and sustained. (Yes we could debate these endlessly too, but generally these were the results, IMO.) Coincidence? No. You reap what you sow. There is a more elaborate explanation, but it boils down to that. (And isn’t it interesting that this man who touts morality early in this piece now advocates summarily dispensing with the basic principles of justice? Niiiiiice! This guy is obviously HIGHLY selective about his morality, which makes him not very moral at all.) **** >As Americans, we`re not governed by fear and appeasement. Says a guy who is playing almost exclusively on fear and hype. >As Americans, we inherit a higher obligation than placating contemporary opinion. That sounds Nazi-esque. Creepy indeed. >As Americans, we reject the illusion of greener pastures offered by moral equivocators. Mr. selective-morality using the M word again. >As Americans, we offer unceasing hostility to terrorists, tyrants, and every system of oppression. That’s not a very moral position, and given that he invents his own definitions and morality, it’s an even more concerning statement. >Because, as Americans, we`re born to a special destiny. Very creepy again. Nazi-esque again. >We won`t evade the defense of freedom. I don’t believe he understands the meaning of the word “freedom.” >We won`t take counsel of our fears. >We won`t seek shelter in the naïve comfort of misguided hopes. >And we won`t shrink from the mission before us. Click, click, click go the jackboots… This guy is unbelievable! >For in the last analysis, we`ll answer, not to the fickle whims of the international community, but to >posterity. Forget true morality; we’ll make our own. Forget consulting others; we’ll do what we want. Forget trying to deal with root causes and issues of basic human justice; we’ve got more #@$%ing fire power than anybody else so we’re just going to drop the biggest $*%&ing bomb we have and worry about what we hit later. Who gives a **** about them any way. They’re all EVIL and we’re all PURE. One of the many concepts these arrogant, ignorant, reactionaries don’t understand is that SELF-INTEREST is not a one definition term. It needs to be split into at least two, opportunistic self-interest and long-term self-interest. Perhaps Mr. Delay is suffering from an overwhelming sense of personal inadequacy, and it makes him feel like a man to talk tough. (I’m sure there is really some other reason but I haven’t enough respect for the man to spend any time thinking about why he would take this position.) So promoting an ill thought out, ill directed course of action satisfies his opportunistic self-interest. He can pretend, for a short period of time, that he is a real man. But, if the US acts on his advice and goes in firing, without having built the right level of support from the other countries in the ME and the rest of the world, and in doing so destabilises Saudi Arabia, fails to replace Hussein’s regime with a more moderate one, and generally manages to fuel the anti-US hatred in the ME which leads to a wave of suicide bombings in the US, then it won’t have been in his, or America’s, or the world’s long-term self-interest. Dare to think, Mr. Delay. Dare to think! Have the courage to be honest and considered about your position. It’s not only your life that you are jeopardising.
