Monday, September 29, 2003

The Saddam-9/11 Challenge. Donald Sensing challenged his left-leaning readers to come up with some sort of proof that the Bush Administration "actively led Americans to believe that Saddam and the 9/11 attacks were directly linked". Here is his post. The great thing about the internet is that on the White House site, you've got all the speeches and press releases. I figured all I would have to do is just go back through some of the speeches and press briefings, and I'd find something. I didn't know that I would; I just figured it would be there. I've just scanned over a few of the press briefings, radio addresses, and speeches; all I did to narrow my search was go to temporal cusps of important events. This is by no means a comprehensive list -- I seek only to give representative examples that connect Hussein and Terror. Every American knows that Al Qaeda was responsible for September 11. By discussing terror, Al Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein at the same time, a direct link is being forged. Read these quotes and decide for yourself. I've provided links to the White House's own web site if you would like to verify. Sometimes I haven't been able to provide links directly to the quote -- you'll have to search on the page a little bit to find it. Let the quotes speak for themselves. I find the last quote, the full text of a letter from Bush to the Speaker of the House, to be the most direct. President Addresses the Nation, September 7, 2003: "For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September the 11th, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power. This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly -- yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security. " From Bush's "End of Combat" Speech, May 1, 2003: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed." "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. (Applause.) In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." Fleischer Press Briefing, March 18, 2003: "Q And one other question, which is, can the President present any show-and-tell evidence of ties to al Qaeda with Saddam, and also a nuclear potential immediately or imminently? MR. FLEISCHER: You heard what Secretary Powell talked about when he went to the United Nations and has reiterated on a regular basis since then, as well as others in the administration, about the presence in Baghdad of al Qaeda operatives, about the involvement of al Qaeda trained in Iraq involved in the assassination of AID worker Foley in Jordan. So this has been something that has been discussed very publicly. Q Why is the -- the CIA and FBI have never said that, backed that up. MR. FLEISCHER: Don't think it would have been said if it hadn't been supported by them. " Fleischer Press Briefing, March 19, 2003: "Q Are the old ideas of containment and the other policies that we've seen since the Cold War, are they disregarded by this administration? MR. FLEISCHER: No, indeed, they're not. But what you do have is -- containment was a very sound policy when you had a bipolar world involving the Soviet Union and the United States. And containment, indeed, did work in that world. What you have now in the post-communist era is a world of different types of threats to the United States, some of which can, indeed, be dealt with through containment. Others -- and Secretary Rumsfeld has referred this as asymmetrical threats -- do not apply. Containment works when you're dealing with more of a rational nation-state, as opposed to terrorist organizations -- terrorist organizations that cannot be contained. Their use of weapons such as we saw on September 11th, flying airplanes into buildings -- you cannot contain al Qaeda. That's one of the reasons the President has engaged in this war on terrorism around the world and has conducted it the way he has. I don't think anybody would suggest al Qaeda could have been, or will be, or should have been contained. " Fleischer Press Briefing, September 25, 3003: "Q We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question. Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has said al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there are. And then the President said, talking about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the President saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship? Do you have evidence that supports that? MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is saying that's the danger. The President has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is for people -- the world's worst dictators with the world's worst weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And that's what the President has said. Q So why -- when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage between the two, what is he talking about? MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And we've seen that in the past. And so the risk is that al Qaeda operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it's cause for concern. And I think it's very understandably so. If you're searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I say what Secretary Rumsfeld said -- the problem with smoking guns is they only smoke after they're fired. " President's Radio Address, March 8, 2003: "THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This has been an important week on two fronts of our war against terror. First, American and Pakistani authorities captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our country, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. This is a landmark achievement in disrupting the al Qaeda network, and we believe it will help us prevent future acts of terror. We are currently working with over 90 countries and have dealt with over 3,000 terrorists, who have been detained, arrested, or otherwise will not be a problem for the United States. Second, the Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector reported yesterday to the Security Council on his efforts to verify Saddam Hussein's compliance with Resolution 1441. This resolution requires Iraq to fully and unconditionally disarm itself of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials, as well as the prohibited missiles that could be used to deliver them. Unfortunately, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is still violating the demands of the United Nations by refusing to disarm. " "Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. The attacks of September the 11, 2001 showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terror states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force. " President's Radio Address, September 8, 2002: "The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." President's Radio Address, February 8, 2003: "One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. " State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003: "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) " Presidential Letter, March 18, 2003: Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary March 18, 2003 Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that: (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH 9:06:45 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

Back and Forth. I like Dean's World -- the commentary is somewhat elevated above the usual "nuke the ragheads" crap you often see out there. We were commenting on this article: "The problem, Ross, is that you undercut your own credibility by referring to everyone who doubts your viewpoint as "Republicans" and paint it as "non-Republicans" who are on the other side. You undercut it further by citing a polemic editorial from left-wing political commentators who freely mix opinion and rumor with fact and make little effort to distinguish between them. Your failure to acknowledge that, so far, we are within the pre-announced, non-hidden budget and the administration is simply asking for $7 billion more than what it said it might ask for undercuts your point still further. Worst of all, you elide the point that so many critics are saying there was "no plan," which is what started this discussion. I mean, I thank you for acknowledging that there was a plan; now it would be nice to see you say something like, "Yes, the people who say there was no plan are idiots and they embarass me. There was a plan, I just think it was a bad plan." Or poorly implemented. Acknowledging that only a few months post-invasion that the situation is going well by historical measures for any major occupation would also be nice, but I suppose that's asking too much. Still, straightforward, blunt honesty would do a lot to elevate the debate. And to make it easier to take the administration's critics seriously. " Dean, credibility is something that generally has to be earned, rather than assumed.  I find that particularly true today.  You slight my credibility because I have generalized somewhat about R and non-R positions.  Let me gather a few quotes from just this comment list: "The majority of Democrats seeking the presidency have sold their souls to the devil" "But even you admit there is a disconnect between reality and a lot of Democrats these days: "Since a goodly portion of the Democrats seem to resolutely ignore this sort of thing, we have to put them down as unsensible thinkers" Dean, at NO point in my comment did I say "no plan".  I said "shoddy financial planning", and "not according to plan".  Why do you use quotations to generate a statement I did not make?  There is a reason...there is a certain segment of the population (see how I do not generalize :) who, upon reading a piece with which they have disagreement, see things that aren't there. Or maybe we've all just read so much of this stuff that it's hard to tell things apart.  Your very first written sentence to me was to call me, in effect, something of a liar.  Is that not what credibility concerns?  Many would consider that to be a personal attack.  In any case...the $87 billion follows an initial $80 billion allocated, making costs so far around $167 billion (although it varies)...and there will be at minimum of five years more of this.  Those five years will likely be at somewhat reduced cost, but we must retain a range of planning options. In addition, over such a long time frame, we will see _dramatic_ reductions in the Reserves and National Guard, because being deployed for a year or two at a time, in a foreign, pre-emptive war, is not something that the part-timers signed up for.  They signed up to defend America, here.  Many of us "lefties" can't help but genuinely wonder how much we could have done in the world with $10 billion in carrot, instead of several hundred billion in stick.  9:39:53 AM     | comment [] | trackback []