I am thankful for these Republicans

Today is Thanksgiving and we are to be giving thanks for all those good things that providence has blessed us with. I was not in a particularly thankful mood this am until I read the Seattle Times. There were two articles there that made me remember that not all Republicans are menacity personified as is Geo. Bush and Dick Cheney and the other members of their cabal.

So here are the articles, and may we hope that the coming year will provide us with the will and the opportunity to rid ourselves of the plague that currently occupies D.C.

http://tinyurl.com/4jato

http://tinyurl.com/69sfs

A site to savor

Courtesy of Sisyphus Shrugged. I thought I had seen it all, but an observer of contemporary political life, who pens in verse, now this is worth pointing out:

http://www.madkane.com/notable01_04c.html#11_22_04

Prequel: This here's the south

I went to law school at the University of Kentucky in the early part of the '70s. For those that don't know, it's located in Lexington, Kentucky, a lovely bit of geography if you like rolling hills, white fences, large mansions and thoroughbred horses. All picture perfect.

One of my classmates, actually two of them, were named Andrew Thornton. The first Andrew Thornton, the one this story is not about, was an inoffensive type. Wrote a letter to the editor of the student newspaper complaining about how smokers were trashy because they left their butts and ashes everywhere without regard to cleaning up after themselves. He, of course, was marginalized, because this was the center of tobacco production. There were tobacco warehouses and drying barns w/in blocks of the law school. During certain times of the year you couldn't escape the smell. But cigarettes were 35 cents a pack, and practically everyone smoked, so nobody paid attention to that Andrew Thornton.

The second Andrew Thornton, or Drew, as he liked to be called, was a former police officer from Fayette County (Lexington's County) on the narcotics task force. Drew was not someone that I tended to gravitate around for many reasons, chief among them his law enforcement background. Turns out Drew had been high society Lexington, his family was in the Blue Book that listed only the top names, and he had gone to Sayre School, the private school for those of a certain class. How he ended up in law enforcement, I do not know. But what came clear a few years later, was that Drew did not leave his narc background behind. He started dealing in drugs at some point, probably during his law school career and used his connections to help his career. Several years after graduation from law school he had a huge network built up where he and those who worked for him were regularly importing huge amounts of cocaine up from Mexico and/or South America. There's a badly written book out there about his story titled The Bluegrass Conspiracy. Although, the writing is execrable, the gist of the story is true. Drew was able to convert or subvert law enforcement through out the Commonwealth of Kentucky so that he could run his drug business.

However, this being Kentucky, things can and do have a tendency to go badly wrong. As they did for Drew. Seems that Drew's preferred mo was to fly a plane up from S. America or Mexico w/ large bales of cocaine, each with a parachute and transponder attached for ease of recovery. Then at pre-arranged locations, the bales were pushed out of the plane, the parachutes opened and voila, instant mega cash. Drew would jump out at the last minute, put the plane on automatic pilot directed into the Appalachian or Smoky mountains, the plane would crash in wilderness presumably, and Drew would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Until his last flight, when Drew jumped out strapped to a bale of cocaine. Turns out that the combination was too much for the parachute, which couldn't take the excess weight and collapsed. Drew 'bought the farm' so to speak on someone's driveway in eastern Tennessee or western Carolina. The plane crashed into the mountains further east. The authorities, finally driven to investigate after the homeowner put in a complaint, found the plane and located some of the cocaine bales. Well at least one. It was also up in the woods. It had been opened by a bear, who had engorged himself on the contents and died nearby shortly afterward.

Drew Thornton, a sterling example of Lexington's finest in law and in law enforcement.

This here's the south part 2

Well, in Lexington, Ky yesterday word came out that a trooper who was speeding down Harrodsburg Road at 81 mph w/o his lights flashing or siren running, and ran into a woman in another car, and did not apply his brakes, will not be charged with murder, negligent homicide, vehicular homicide or even some sort of assault or battery. No, he will be charged with speeding and pay the appropriate fines. It also appears that he had no grave emergency that he was responding to at the time of the crash. I bet the family of the young woman killed, feel mighty relieved by these findings.

More on Lexington cops later.

Why we must only fight a just war

Today comes word of war atrocities perpetrated by Americans in a mosque in Fallujah.

The U.S. military has begun an investigation into possible war crimes after a television pool report by NBC showed a Marine shooting dead a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Falluja mosque, officials said on Monday [...]
The pool report by NBC correspondent Kevin Sites said the mosque had been used by insurgents to attack U.S. forces, who stormed it and an adjacent building, killing 10 militants and wounding the five.
Sites said the wounded had been left in the mosque for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. No reason was given why that had not happened.
A second group of Marines entered the mosque on Saturday after reports it had been reoccupied. Footage from the embedded television crew showed the five still in the mosque, although several appeared to be already close to death, Sites said.
He said one Marine noticed one of the prisoners was still breathing.
A Marine can be heard saying on the pool footage provided to Reuters Television: "He's fucking faking he's dead. He faking he's fucking dead."
"The Marine then raises his rifle and fires into the man's head. The pictures are too graphic for us to broadcast," Sites said.
The report said the Marine had returned to duty after being shot in the face a day earlier.
Sites said the shot prisoner "did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way."
www.yahoo.com

Atrocities are unfortunately a by product of war. There is absolutely no way in hell that we or any other military can ensure that in the heat of battle, unarmed combatants or civilians are not murdered or worse by soldiers raised to a blood lust. Look at the Vikings and how they would goad themselves into aboslute paroxysms of battle fury when all that mattered was killing. They used to break open a combatant's back and pull out the lungs, making a gruesome parody of wings and call it a 'blood eagle.'

"Einar had his ribs cut from the spine with a sword and the lungs pulled out through the slits in his back. He dedicated the victim to Odin as a victory offering."Orkneyinga Saga

It is next to impossible to escape our violent roots. And as a Poli Sci professor from my undergraduate institution was fond of saying, civilization is a thin veneer holding our society together, which can be broken readily by exigent circumstances. He knew. His family barely made it out of Germany before the Holocaust.

That is why war is not something that can be declared lightly, as was done in the present case by the current US administration. Because when our wars are fought on a pretext, there is no way to absorb and give meaning and ultimately understanding to the atrocities whatsoever. Those who declare war must take the responsibility for acknowledging and atoning for the acts of horror perpetrated in our name. This will not be done by those installed in the White House. Being president means never having to say you're sorry for the current holder of the mantle. And that is a special horror all its own.

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign.... Secondly, a just cause.... Thirdly ... a rightful intention.
Saint Thomas Aquinas

It is well that war is so terrible--we shouldn't grow too fond of it.
General Robert E. Lee

This here's the south

A Louisville man charged with reckless homicide in the head-butting death of a teenager outside a party in Lexington last year agreed Monday to plead guilty to a lesser charge and could face a year in jail.
Aaron A. Roth, 20, of Louisville was charged in the death of Nicholas J. Holmes, 19, of House Springs, Mo. The incident occurred early Jan. 18 at Royal Lexington Apartments off Virginia Avenue. Holmes died of head trauma after Roth delivered a head-butt and knocked Holmes to the sidewalk. Holmes hit his head on the concrete.
Roth originally was charged with manslaughter and was indicted on a charge of reckless homicide.
Yesterday, witnesses and jurors were sent home, and Roth, 20, signed a plea agreement for fourth-degree assault, a misdemeanor that carries a 12-month sentence or a $500 fine. Commonwealth’s Attorney Ray Larson told Circuit Judge Mary Noble that he recommended Roth serve 12 months in the Fayette County jail.

That's the South for you. Now if our fine upstanding citizen, Mr. Roth, had stolen a radiator from someone's car, I would bet a minimum sentence would have been 5 years.

Hunting for roaches

The headlines coming from US media seem to indicate that our military is getting ready to declare "Mission Accomplished" in Falujah. Well, I'm not there with them, but sometimes a longer perspective appears called for in determining whether success can actually be claimed.

25 years ago I lived outside of Washington, D.C. in Old Town, Alexandria, VA. Prior to that I had lived for 5 years in Lexington, Kentucky. Both places where I lived had roaches. You wouldn't see them if you were actively roaming around the kitchen, but early in the morning or late at night, if you turned on the light to go in, there they would be, scurrying under cupboards and refrigerators, hiding out. I'd fumigate for them frequently, but they would just move to other parts of the apartment buildings and come back a week or two later, no worse for wear.

And that's what I think is going on in Fallujah. Our forces (which according to 7 retired generals in the current issue of rolling stone magazine, are way undermanned: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6593163?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7 ) cannot wipe out the roaches in Iraq because they lack the ability to cordon them off and round them up. As I write this, the very last of them are no doubt scurrying to Mosul, or Baghdad or a hundred other places where they can hide out before their next unmanned bomb or sniper attack on our forces. Those civilians unlucky enough to have been trapped in Fallujah (and make no mistake, the US forces violated international law by refusing to let civilians leave prior to the offensive's start this past week) provided probably the majority of the casualties. The blog site Baghdad Burning ( http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) has news of this as does an article in Scotland's press. http://www.sundayherald.com/46056 They make for horrific reading.

We have not stomped out the roaches in Iraq. We have only created more.

Ashcroft meets equal in Gonzales

Ok, I stole this from Eric Alterman, but he used my favorite term:

Can anyone be a worse attorney general than John Ashcroft? Meet Alberto Gonzales who never met a provision of the Geneva Convention he couldn’t find a way to ignore. Congratulations Mr. President. I promise to stop misunderestimating you, right now.


12 Nov 2004

further thoughts:

This confirmation will be the first test of new Senate Minority leader Harry Reid from Nevada. I am afraid that Sen. Reid, coming from a red state, will have the same handicaps that hindered Sen. Daschle in the role (and alert readers will note it was my frustration w/ Daschle that led to the creation of this blog...).

Further, if latino groups are mobilized by the Bush administration to chant racism against Dems opposed to his appointment, I would suggest that said latino groups be directed to something that has a more substantial and immediate effect on the welfare of their members: the proliferation of clone Arizona Proposition 200's around the nation. And please note that some of the current Administration's most fervent supporters are also supporting this idea. What is Arizona Proposition 200 you ask? Glad you did. See Orcinus or http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ and the following for more information: http://tinyurl.com/5ld9a.

Nothing like the administration for taking attention away from the important stuff.

Most vacuous statement coming from the adminstration post Nov 2

I just cannot decide. There are so many choices. First there was Bush the eternal prevaricator extending the hand of conciliation to those who agree with our goals. Next Ashcroft said that his mission was accomplished--that of reducing the terror threat, which he proved by lowering our color from orange to yellow. Then there was this from Paul Bremer, former procurator of the IPA:

Bremer: "Just Outcome" Possible in IraqLAST UPDATE: 11/10/2004 6:08:31 AMPosted By: Jim Forsyth
(SAN ANTONIO) -- The US diplomat who ran Iraq for 14 months said today that despite the current unrest in that country, he remains convinced that the US effort in Iraq is a 'noble undertaking' and the end result will be 'a just outcome for the Iraqi people.'
Former Civilian Administrator L. Paul Bremer III told a corporate real estate group here today that the US has already rescued Iraq from the 'spectacular economic mismanagement' of thirty years of dictatorship, and begun to turn around a 'chaotic system' in which inflation was running at 115,000 percent a year, and expenditures on everything from health care to public infrastructure was gradually declining.
Bremer, who left Iraq when the Interim Iraqi Government was sworn in in late June, declined to comment on current developments in that country, but he did defend one very controversial decision which many critics of US Iraqi policy blame for many of the current problems, the decision to disband Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army and bar officials of Saddam's Baath Party from holding any role in that country's future military or civilian administration.
"This was very important because it was a signal that not only had we thrown out Saddam, but that the coalition intended to help the Iraqis create a new Iraq," he said. "That was my most important and symbolic decision."
Bremer said he would sum up his 14 months as civilian administrator by saying he served as a 'psychotherapist to a nation suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.'
The career diplomat also criticized US officials back home for attempting to micromanage the rebuilding of Iraq, a process he called the 'eight thousand mile screwdriver.'
He said at one point he had to call National Security Adviser Condolleezza Rice and ask her to stop National Security Agency staffers from giving orders to his employees behind his back.
"I told her that if they had any tasks they felt should be performed, that they should task me and I would give that assignment to the people I felt could best fulfill it," Bremer said, adding that after his conversation with Rice, the 'problem stopped.'
Bremer also criticized US media coverage of the Iraq operation, saying once that during his tenure, 18,000 reconstruction projects were completed, from rebuilding schools to installing generators and repairing water systems.
"These were the good news stories you never read about in US papers," he said.
Security at Bremer's speech before Core Net Global, an organization of commercial real estate professionals, was extraordinarily tight, with four plain clothed security agents and at least two uniformed San Antonio police officers ringing the stage where he spoke. Bremer dodged two attempts by insurgents in Iraq to murder him during his tenure.
While Bremer said he 'has no time for the rear view mirror' when it comes to critics of his administration, one thing that he is afraid will retard efforts to bring true democracy to Iraq is the tendency of Iraqi leaders to see it as a 'zero sum society.'
"Each group sees the other group's advantage as it's disadvantage, and a victory for me is your loss," he said.
After saying he would not comment on the US military effort in Iraq, Bremer said, "I of course am a strong supporter of the liberation of the Iraqi people, I feel strongly that it was the correct decision."


Please, a word of caution. Do not practice psychotherapy w/o a degree and a license to do so. Freud must be spinning around his cigar.

If you didn't think we were in a Crusade

Think again. The second photo in the embedded link in the title of this post is horrifying. Which is not to say that the first photo is any better. A rosary wrapped around the barrel of a tank cannon is beyond abomination.

The Roman Catholic Church should condemn this asap.

Are we masochists?

I've done a fair amount of soul searching in the past 8 days as well as read post mortems on the internet and discussed the results w/ friends and acquaintances. What has become clear to me is that I am not interested in blaming John Kerry or John Edwards for anything. I think that the voting irregularities in FL and OH are sufficient to cause most considerate folks to start to demand recounts and verification of the votes. But that is grist for another mill, another time.

What I am truly struck by is the politics of victimization. I read one commentator, whose name is lost in the fog at present, who thinks that Democrats have and are behaving like victims of domestic violence. And I think he has a point there. Democrats have always been willing to take abuse, both from within and without, and turn the other cheek or seriously discuss the merits. The Republicans don't even let it on their porch. I think these differences in approach are telling about the mindsets of the two parties and it is continuing to permit the demonization of Democrats that is going on in the press today.

And the Democrats don't either realize it or they contribute to it themselves. Case in point. There's a very funny rant out in the blogosphere at htttp://www.fuckthesouth.com. I posted it on a political discussion site and was immediately vehemently denouced by Democrats for conduct unbecoming. Yet not 2 hours previously a rant advocating elimination of the Democrats that the author admitted was modeled on Swift's 'A Modest Proposal,' (which btw advocated eating Irish babies during the height of the famine) with the only distinction, the author said, was that Swift was satirizing and HE was not, garnered not one whit of condemnation.

When I was in college I was on the staff of the school newspaper which at that time was being run by a couple of hard core feminists--very au courant for 1972. We had one male columnist whose weekly column was rejected by the editors when he wrote about how a friend of his had shit in a hat and given it to him as a 21st birthday present, from which he drew parallels about coming of age in the VN era. Too crass was the editors' comment. In that same issue, there was a column by a feminist who led off the article with a definition of 'menses,' and proceeded to talk about that function and its oppression in society. The next week, the male columnist delivered a diatribe, which at least the editors were open minded enough to print, that contrasted the banned column with the published one and asked: why was one bodily function not ok and the other one was?

So why is it ok to trash Democrats in the most unkind and cruel manner, and yet Democrats condemn this same tactic when applied to Republicans? Democrats will remain in the one down position unless they get a lot better at recognizing and attacking Republican bigotry. Democrats can start their rebuilding process by leaving their more aggressive brethren alone to seek out and engage the Republicans nastily and vociferously, and not sanctimoniously condemning them. We need that vanguard.

For additional thoughts, I would recommend: http://mattwelch.com/archives/week_2004_11_07.html#002860

Something to cheer you up

as we grieve our losses.

Some definitions, proving once again that puns are the lowest form of humor.

1. Coffee (n.), a person who is coughed upon.

2. Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much
weight you have gained.

3. Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having
a flat stomach.

4. Esplanade (v.), to attempt an explanation while
drunk.

5. Willy-nilly (adj.), impotent.

6. Negligent (adj.), describes a condition in which
you absentmindedly answer the door in your
nightgown.

7. Lymph (v.), to walk with a lisp.

8. Gargoyle (n.), an olive-flavored mouthwash.

9. Flatulence (n.) the emergency vehicle that picks
you up after you are run over by a steamroller.

10. Balderdash (n.), a rapidly receding hairline.

11. Testicle (n.), a humorous question on an exam.

12. Rectitude (n.), the formal, dignified demeanor
assumed by a proctologist immediately before he
examines you.

13. Oyster (n.), a person who sprinkles his
conversation with Yiddish expressions.

14. Pokemon (n), A Jamaican proctologist.

15. Frisbeetarianism (n.), The belief that, when you
die your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck
there.

16. Circumvent (n.), the opening in the front of
boxer shorts.



I'm gonna become a frisbeetarian to take on all those right wing assholes.

Light one candle for hope

I woke up at 2 am this morning and couldn't get back to sleep until after 4. I've read that some are calling this anxiety PEAD, or Pre-Election Anxiety Disorder. I can tell you that alcohol doesn't really help the condition long term. Maybe meditation might, or a good workout, or good Belgian chocolate in abundant quantities.

But what I am proposing is that Monday night, all of us who are in favor of regime change, light a candle against the darkness. And that we place these candles in our windows as signals to our neighbors that we will not allow the forces of darkness to overwhelm us. And that we will battle our enemies, both outside and within the US, until justice triumphs and freedom is ours once again.

Moe

p.s. Of course, make sure not to put your candle next to anything flammable such as draperies or left over Halloween candy. ;>)

The Washington gubernatorial race tightens up

According to the NYT, linked above in the title, the race for Washington state governor has pulled to a virtual tie. They may be right, but I do think that Gregoire, the Democratic candidate known as COG, will probably eventually win as a result of Kerry's coattails. However, I don't think that the Times got the real reason for Dino Rossi's surprising showing in the state polls. The answer is actually: personality. In his ads and with voters, Dino comes across as a warm likeable fellow. Truly someone you could sit down and have dinner with, if not a beer. In contrast, COG is an ice queen. Any reference to family, or attempt to show emotion comes across in a very forced manner. She seems she would be much more comfortable cracking the whip, or screaming at flagging subordinates, as in fact has been the case, witness the Janet Capps fiasco as the tip of CoG's management temperament iceberg. Surprisingly, voters seem to get that and recoil from her presentation.

COG may have the better policies to provide the state, but she has forgotten that what Mary Poppins sang about was true: a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. Dino seemingly has that ability.

Bush's missing TANG time 'splained for us

It appears that the pResident's volunteer work at a Houston project for the disadvantaged in 1973, adroitly acronymed PULL, was: a) not volunteer; and b) not management experience. It also occurred during the time that the pResident was supposed to be reporting for his National Guard service in Alabama. Which he did not do. Now what would be so overwhelmingly important that the pResident would risk being found AWOL and sent to Vietnam? Hmm....could it have been a cocaine charge that was only going to be wiped out if said 'volunteer' service were performed?

If I were a betting man......

Sexual Politics

When was it that the door was opened and the sexual pecadillos and orientations of our elected officials became a subject of public discourse? Certainly after LBJ and JFK had exited stage left. To my mind, the first ghost of it came with the interview of Jimmy Carter where he confessed that he had 'lust in his heart' for women other than his wife, Roslyn. Or maybe it showed up with Congressman Wilbur Mills who danced in the fountain with Fanne Fox, the young woman of questionable virtue. Such is the value of age, that these foibles fade from mind, though they were sharply incised once.

Then at some point the focus veered from hetero to homosexual philanderings. I remember when Bob Bauman, the very conservative congressman from Maryland was outed in 1981 for his taste in young boys. The jokes around D.C. were fast and furious: "born in Maryland but reared in D.C." was one of them. Eventually Barney Frank and others gave a sober face to gay politicians but the whinge factor is still there. As witnessed by the cringing when John Kerry uttered the "L" word in his third and last debate with President Bush, referring to Mary Cheney and her sexual orientation. What it seems to come down to is that the Republicans, though they refuse to say it, think that being gay or lesbian is a choice, like whether you have gas or oil heat in your house. The Democrats, by and large, believe that it is an innate preference, akin to being lefthanded or having brown eyes.

I have a brother who is gay. Back when we were closer than we are now, he asked me, "Do you think that, knowing all the trouble that this would cause me in life, I actually chose this oritentation?" I believed him. But my mother as late as 4 years ago still said daily rosaries for him to 'come to his senses,' and my sister gave him a pamphlet that indicated with enough prayer he could lead a happy hetero life. Obviously, they saw his homosexuality as a choice.

I think they fear that if it isn't a choice, there is no accountability, no responsibility for his actions. He is free to do as he pleases. Kind of like when W found 'god'--it absolved him from his responsibility for his 20 year drug and drinking binge and obtaining an abortion for his girlfriend. What they forget is that one always has accountability for one's actions regardless of sexual orientation. And if this sexual orientation 'thingy' as GHWB used to say is a matter of choice, then all it takes is an act of will for gays to come back to the fold. That is why Republicans can support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Because if they admitted that being gay is not a matter of choice, then they would have to admit that they are imposing second class citizenship on a group of US citizens that is simply akin to that done to African Americans in the Dred Scott decision. This is the real place for Dred Scott, not the abortion debates. But then that makes the Republicans no better than Justice Taney, which should be an anathema. Thus, they continue to perpetrate their illusions.


But in the end and at the core, this is all about sex, and American society has at least since Victorian times been schizophrenic when it comes to sex. Always a sunny, androgynous, face to present to the world, with the darker implications of one's sexuality left in dank, dark basements of our minds and sometimes even literally in our lives. Until we as a society can address this conflict that lies at the foundation of our weltanschaung, we will never be able to free ourselves from the chains that such an approach creates.

Lets start to clean out our basements and actually bring out sexuality in to the open for a good, thorough examination. Ironically, if we can do this, things might get healthier in our lives and in that of the body politic.

Want to make a difference?

Sinclair Broadcast Group has announced plans to air "Stolen Honor" a nasty smear job on John Kerry, in a thinly disguised attempt to win the election for W. Fight back. Attached is a list of those companies who advertise on Sinclair tv stations. Use the list to identify companies you have patronized then write to them and tell them that if they don't get off their butts and either yank their ads or pressure Sinclair to drop the hatchet job, you will take your bidness elsewhere.

And mean it. Vote with your wallet as well as your ballot. The link is in the title of this note. And btw, thanks. Every little bit helps.

What a difference two years makes

Bush gave the following speech:


For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002


President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

Purple Hearts

Very, very powerful. Worth recommending to all your friends

The view from the USAF jet in Iraq

Not for the fainthearted:


http://tinyurl.com/6a3mj