April 24, 2003

We should bring about a "regime change," then, hand over all power for governing and rebuilding France to the United Nations...

Posted by: John B on April 24, 2003 04:38 PM

Just ignore them. It's the worst thing you can do to a histrionic nation.

Posted by: set on April 24, 2003 04:57 PM

MAKE JIMMIE CARTER THE AMBASSADOR AND AL SHARPTON THE GENERAL CONSUL IN PARIS. THEN, IGNORE THEM.

Posted by: RUTH KING on April 24, 2003 07:49 PM

Make them read every modern French philosopher from Jean Paul Sartre to Jacques Lacan--no skipping pages allowed. Tell them there will be an exam. The lowest scorers will have to go on reading them over until they get it right.

Posted by: Rita Kramer on April 25, 2003 12:32 AM

Punch them. Not in the nose. Above the head. In their complex of superiority

Posted by: JFM on April 25, 2003 04:28 AM

Instead of Dunce Caps, make Chirac and Villedepin wear big cowboy hats and boots forever.

Posted by: Yale on April 25, 2003 08:39 AM

I believe the prescription that best fits le maladie Francaise has already been written by comic genius Terry Gilliam of Monty Python fame:

1. Fart in their general direction;
2. Wave your private parts at their aunties.

This is easier for New Yorkers than for others, of course.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on April 25, 2003 09:45 AM

Make them live in America.

For French jerks, and there are some, no punishment could be worse. But for us Americans it will be good: up close, we will see that the French are no worse than us. We are suddenly HATING the entire nation just because of something that Chirac said. I sure would not want to be judged by Bush's actions, or Clinton's, or Gore's. My name is Matthew Maly, get to know me better and judge me by who I am. As far as the French, ENOUGH ALREADY. This is unworsthy of adults, really. Let's spend our time being more creative, kinder, a better parent, spouse, son or daughter. And above all, let's be vigilant so that we are not whipped up into a frenzy by those who plot to take away our Precious Rights and Freedoms. I am an American, and I am being assassinated by my own government http://nunn-lugar.com/def/articles/1.shtml. No French are involved.

Posted by: Matthew Maly on April 26, 2003 12:56 PM

I say we make them all read this, and show 'em that we know how to pursue an issue with integrity and virtue. Just let 'em try and argue with our example.

Posted by: Frank on April 26, 2003 01:51 PM

Frank,
Your faith in ABC news, the UN, and Saddam's word that he had no WMD's and certainly wouldn't help Islamist terrorists is touching. Many of us feel enormous relief that Saddam can no longer supply bounty to suicide bombers, can no longer enjoy the successes of his assasination squads (although they failed to get Bush 41, they had numerous kills), can no longer supply anthrax, botulinum or nerve gas to America haters. And yes, we're pleased that children's jails are emptied and many thousands of lives have been spared by our peace movement--the USMC. But we understand that the real threat to world peace is W. and that the task at hand is to stop the Americans. Well, M. Chirac will be glad to know he has friends here who share his world view.

Posted by: Stephen on April 26, 2003 02:42 PM

Stephen, you're suggesting that I made a "moral equivalency" argument, and on that basis you're ignoring the malfeasance in the Bush administration. I said nothing if the kind, and, if you'd asked first, I'd certainly have agreed that Iraqis are now free of the horrible regime. However, as moral citizens we are all obliged to call out evil where we see it, and if it's in our White House, it should be pointed out. Especially since the President is an example for all our children. Righteousness demands no less; it's a moral imperative. Don't go soft on evil, Stephen.

Call them out: it's your duty.

Posted by: Frank on April 26, 2003 03:57 PM

INVADE FRANCE,

INSTALL DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.

Posted by: Yale on April 26, 2003 04:03 PM

Actually, Yale, I think we should put a law through the House of Reps where we change the name of their country to Freedom.

:-)

Posted by: Frank on April 26, 2003 04:09 PM

Frank,
You say "Iraquis are now free of the horrible regime" as if the "evil" Bush administration had nothing to do with that!! Are you willing to give credit to W. for confronting that evil? If it had been up to you, that same murderous regime would still be killing innocents by the thousands weekly. It's you and those who endorsed your views that lent support to his sadistic regime. Your latest argument is really just a continuation of your argument against military action by the U.S. to get rid of Saddam and his Baathist totalitarian regime. Is the "evil" you cite, even if true--I think it isn't--, that the Bush administration wasn't up front about its motives, really to be described using the same word--'evil' as is used to describe the Saddam horrors? Who's making an inappropriate moral equivalence? You can't have it both ways Frank, claiming the mantle of moral arbiter when condemning Bush, while ignoring the fact that real live people now owe their freedom to Bush's willingness to act. Let's hear what the inhabitants of Saddam's gulag think of your condemnation of Bush as "evil".It's you Frank, who lent support, clearly not intentionally, to the preservation of a Stalinist barbarian regime. Just as, in Orwell's observation, it was the highly moral pacifists who were "objectively" pro-Hitler. Time for some self searching rather than accusing Bush, Horsefeathers, et.al. of moral failure.

Posted by: Stephen on April 26, 2003 04:34 PM

Yeah, guilty as charged. I'd fogotten I was dialoging with God himself here. Sorry!

Posted by: Frank on April 26, 2003 05:12 PM

1) No contracts to French or french-owned companies from the Pentagon or
Federeal Government;
2) No tax credits to US companies
for buying French-made products and services (like airplaines, satellites deliveries, etc.)
3) Diplomatic isolation from any forum
US organizes. (See
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Apr03/index134.shtml)

Posted by: Boris A.Kupershmidt on April 26, 2003 11:01 PM

Make them eat at McDonald's FOREVAH!

Posted by: sinalco on April 27, 2003 10:56 AM

Simple: Install USN/US Army recurting centers in every major French city and offer citizenship, and watch France's best and brightest cook for our boys, and watch as she slowly falls into 'frog jihad'... Of course every time Chirac attends a diplomatic dinner in the UK serve him a cheaper American beer with fried chicken and british beef.

Posted by: publius on April 28, 2003 12:07 AM

We could punish them by de-stabilizing the regime of the Elitist Socialists who run Facist France and promote a more republican form of government that would give the masses in France more of a say in how things are run. Maybe we could promote a French cowboy (or an equivalent) for President of France.

Posted by: Rich Arnone on April 28, 2003 03:08 AM

A mon avis la meilleur facon de punir les Francais est de leur couper les couilles. oh...putain! Ils n'en ont pas. Au lieu de ca on pourrait baiser leurs femmes.

Posted by: Suliman Blauge on April 28, 2003 11:09 PM

Open immigration for (non-Islamic) French citizens.

Posted by: someone on April 29, 2003 02:58 AM

Forbid the A800 (also known as super AirBus) to land on US soil. This would force the cancellation of the project.

The A800 will be two or three times larger and heavier than the largest model of 747. That means that it can tumble a major skyscrapper from the sheer for of impact and would kill everybody in the building. It could also trigger a domino effect since the building would not fall vertically as the WTC but sidewards. Finally an A800 would penetrate the containment envelope around the core of a nuclear plant. But passengers would resist hijacking isn't it? Except that there would not be hijackers: remember that Egyptian copilot who voluntarily crashed his airliner.

This thing is much too dangerous to be allowed to roam the skies. And the cancellation of A800 would do lot of damage to the whole Axis of Weasels not only to France.

Posted by: JFM on April 29, 2003 04:42 AM

Stephen,

Absolutely no one denies that having Saddam Hussein out is a good thing; and as you know from another discussion, I have never equated Bush with Hussein. To suggest otherwise is impolite and does nothing to forward discussions. But to fail to recognize government malfeasance when it occurs corrupts government a little further, insofar as it changes the standards by which we judge them. I pay too much in taxes to expect anything but forthrightness from our leaders, and you probably don't feel happy about it either. It doesn't matter to me where the dishonesty is, so much as I want to see it ended.

Can't you see that? Why do you have this yearning need to act as if I'm some extremist? (You sound the more so in doing that, in my opinion.)

Yes, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer killing innocent people. But it is important to remember why we went in. 1441 says nothing about all these other, positive by-products, and if they are sufficient justification after the fact, why weren't they used as justification beforehand? Justice is immuteable.

Posted by: Frank on April 29, 2003 02:03 PM

Frank,
Justice may be immutable, but moral indignation comes rather easily to you; I think it ought to be reserved for worthy topics. When you cease using terms like "evil" (as in "don't go soft on evil, Stephen") to describe my differing views, I'll promise not to dub you an extremist--even though I haven't done so. I have no problem with reasoned criticism of our efforts in the war that was declared on us on 9-11. As you may recall, I was opposed to the entire effort to involve the UN, an organization I believe is a scandalous fraud and a primary cause of trouble in the world. I am critical of the President for not doing a thorough housecleaning of the State Dept and the CIA. However, your efforts to inculpate the Bush administration clearly outweigh your pleasure at our removal of a dangerous tyrant from power---thus your constant recurrence to the issue of tactics in enlisting support for our military action; thus your eagerness to overlook the emergence of evidence linking al Qaeda and Saddam and your haste to declare the search for WMD's a failure. Let's see where things stand in a few months, Frank. Before you declare closure, I'd wait a bit. Your criticisms of the Bush administration remind me of those who, following World War 2, eagerly attacked Roosevelt for misleading the country (as he probably did) to win a majority in Congress for a declaration of war. And after the war, there were many disappointed leftists who accused Truman of misleading the country into thinking the Japanese would only surrender if we dropped the Atomic bomb.
The world is a far safer place today (in my opinion) than it would have been had we followed your counsel Frank. Did you raise a toast as I did to the demise of a modern day pharoah? Take a moment to enjoy it. I'm saddened that I can find no evidence that you are aware of how wrong you were.

Posted by: Stephen on April 29, 2003 05:02 PM

Frank,

I think the key issue here is that you are citing a glorified opinion piece that references unnamed (and as such, of questionable credibility) "Officials" as their sole source of information not once, but 13 times.

No one, least of all the Bush administration (or Stephen for that matter), said there was only one reason for going to war in Iraq. For some reason, the anti-Bush crowd insisted that they did, but they didn't. Just because the reasons weren't all given at the same time in every instance doesn't mean they weren't there.

I find it humorous that ABC, or you, or anyone, would question the President's integrity on the WMD reasoning before we've been in a reasonably stable Iraq at least as long as the inspectors were! The very same people who wanted to give Hans Blix an unlimited amount of time to "search" for weapons, are convinced we were lied to simply because the coalition hasn't found them yet.

It would behoove you to remember that Hans Blix and his team didn't have to:
- Get the power turned on again
- Get the water flowing
- Maintain order and combat small terrorist-like attacks by Saddam loyalists and non-Iraqi fighters
- Feed the abandoned animals at the zoo
- Provide security for meetings of those who are seeking to establish an interim government
- Pave the way for humanitarian aid to get to the people who need it most, unhindered by looters and terrorist attacks
- Hunt down Saddam's top brass, and perhaps, Saddam himself
- Get the oil fields updated and ready to pump and produce revenue for the new country (not for us, but for THEM)
- Hunt down and arrest the thieves who looted the museum
- Babysit the unembedded press who have swarmed into Baghdad

Need I go on?

When the President says in an interview that we "may never find them" he's not saying "they were never there." Only a completely illogical thinker would draw such a conclusion. He's merely saying that they may have been moved, destroyed in the days leading up to the war (it's not like we snuck up on Saddam after all, and he did have French help with intelligence even during the war) or so well hidden that we'll spend months digging and hunting for them.

If it takes us months, or even years--even without Saddam's constant interference--how do you think the inspectors would have fared? Would you have been ok with the notion that the Iraqi people would still have been suffering, and Saddam would still have been stealing from the oil for food program, and the UN would still have been making 2% on every barrel sold, etc...while they looked?

See, what you fail to recognize is that we needed to get rid of Saddam to make LOOKING possible. The fact remains that when the last set of inspectors left (prior to this set), we KNEW FOR A FACT (and the UN admitted it, even this time) that there were WMD still left in Iraq. Lots of them. Saddam failed to account for this stuff at all, and this is a guy who videotaped the torture and mutilation of his enemies and kept copious and detailed records of everything he did. I hardly think he forgot to make a note of what he did with them!

Bottom line, it is a huge stretch to use this "article" as a basis for your assertion that ABC is asking the tough questions and using integrity while no one else is. All that ABC is trying to do is recycle a bunch of stuff we already knew (that there was more than one reason for the war), put a sinister spin on it using vague references to even vaguer sources, and suggest a scandalous conclusion to SELL THEIR NETWORK.

Period.

Find me a hard news story that names names and provides real hard evidence in support of the notion that we were "duped" (which would mean you'd have to predict the future because we've only just begun to look for the WMD), and I'll happily consider it, but this ABC article ain't it.

Posted by: Deb on April 29, 2003 05:06 PM

As for the punish France contest...

Tell Jacques Chirac that we'll open the bidding for the rebuilding efforts to French companies just as soon as he, Jacques Chirac, finishes hand-writing a personal apology to the families of each and every victim of Saddam's torture over the last 12 years.

That ought to keep him busy until he dies.

And while we're at it, we should puposely misspell his name is any and all correspondence and references to Jack Chiraq.

Posted by: Deb on April 29, 2003 05:16 PM

I meant purposely, sorry...

Posted by: Deb on April 29, 2003 05:16 PM

>as if the "evil" Bush administration had nothing to do with that!! <

Oh yeah! and who supported that "horrible regime" for
decades when he was bombing the cities of Iran (during
killing his people)? And which government opposed publishing
the applying chemical weapons against civilians?
And who taught the terrible "islamic terrorists" in
Afghanistan to grow opium to finance fighting the
soviets? And who is protecting Israel who is violating more than 35
UN resolution during the last 40 years? and stocking by the way more
than 250 nuclear war heads? And finally, what about the American
mass destruction arsenal Mr. "supporter of freedom
and human rights?"

Really, the American hypocrisy knows no limit

Walid

Posted by: Walid on April 30, 2003 07:48 AM

Maybe Hussein was able to destroy everything in the eleventh hour, but we need to either find definitive proof that he did, or find undestroyed WMDs themselves. (Proof should be available, since that's basically what we wanted them to document in 1441.) This is an incredibly important issue; not because it makes all the other benefits f the toppling meaningless, but because that is the reason we gave for going in. The war against terrorism is not a skirmish like Grenada; it will take many years, and many arenas, and we need to maintain our credibility in order to engage the rest of the world.

Deb is correct in saying that no one ever said WMD was the sole reason, but that was the reason given in 1441, and 1441 was what we pursued in order to gain international acceptance. I myself would have liked to have had everything on the table as justification, when we went to the UN. But the only card we played in the UN, and we played it with confidence, was WMD. If you question the importance of WMD as justification, go back to the State of the Union address, and weigh what was said. I cannot stress enough, this was the argument we used with the international community. All those meetings with Blair, prior to going before the UN, talked about IAEA reports and such. Internal abuses were barely on the radar screen when Bush and Blair had their post-meeting photo sessions.

As for the labor shortages in finding WMD's, yes, I can see that constraint; but Rumsfeld could have put more people against the war, and the US can still call on the UN inspectors to help out. Refusing to do so is significant; it sends a signal to the rest of the world that we can find them without anyone else's help. Well, we'd better!

Posted by: Frank on April 30, 2003 11:09 AM

For convenience, here's what President Bush said with respect to Iraq in his State of the Union address... For convenience, I will bold the portions that relate to offenses/threats other than WMD, to help in weighing the balance of the arguments we were given.

Start of Quote:

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

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.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

End of Quote.

Now, let's go further back, to a speech he made in Cincinnati in October, 2002. (Transcript here.) Again, I'll excerpt all that apparently pertains to Iraq, and bold the portions which relate to some other threat/offense than WMD.

Start of Quote:

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.

End of Quote.

Certainly, I'd agree that Bush was more open about other reasons in the October speech than he was in the State of the Union address. Anyone arguing that WMD were not the only reason would do well to cite the Ocotber speech. But still, WMD make up at least 70% of the air time in that speech, by my guess, and the remaining 30% could be considered insufficient reason since he states repeatedly that it is the combination of WMD with these other elements which makes Saddam Hussein an urgent target.

Also worth noting (I won't bother to cut & paste), is Bush's news conference about a week before the ultimatum was given. If I recall correctly, "September 11" was mentioned about 6-7 times, usually as a reminder that we face a re-enactment if we don't act now.

I don't want to overload Stephen's comment section, but I think a "reasonable man" perspective would say that WMD was the primary reason we went into Iraq.

Posted by: Frank on April 30, 2003 12:09 PM

Sorry for forgetting to mention this... But if the idea is to punish France for not responding to 1441 with a decparation of war, finding WMDs is even more important. Without proof we have no basis for even resenting France, who might say the world has reason to resent us.

So can we wait until we find WMDs before we even think about "punishing France"?

Posted by: Frank on April 30, 2003 12:30 PM

Frank,
Thanks for posting the speeches. Point, set, and match to Deb.
The fact that our diplomats felt it necessary to omit the points Bush made in his October speech (and many others) was a tactical decision urged by Powell and those who regarded UN approval as useful. As you know I regard the UN as a cesspool and wish Bush had never sought legitimacy there. Still, even I was shocked by the French betrayal; no wonder Powell felt stabbed in the back--he had been willing to focus on WMD's in 1441 because he was led to believe the French would support the use of force. You seem awfully eager to believe that Bush and Blair lied when they said the Iraqis possess WMD's. Tariq Aziz will be pleased to learn that there are many like you, more inclined to believe him. Patience: all will be revealed in time. Remember when you knew there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?
Further, as to your earlier moral injunction: "...However, as moral citizens we are all obliged to call out evil where we see it, and if it's in our White House, it should be pointed out..."; don't you think "evil" is a word that should not be drained of its generally accepted meaning?

Posted by: Stephen on April 30, 2003 02:12 PM

Stephen, I guess I disagree with whether or not "realpolitik" was appropriate here, and while Deb made cogent remarks, some higher authority will have to be in the point-rewarding business.

I will agree that time will tell, and I do hope that we either find WMDs or evidence that Iraq had them up to the eleventh hour. In the meantime, I think we would both do well to hold our horses. Time will tell. Discussing retribution against France is premature, and doesn't reflect well on our country beforehand.

Posted by: Frank on April 30, 2003 02:17 PM

Guess I'm a little late getting back to this topic, but I have to chime in once again.

Frank, while you are correc that 1441 focused on WMD, we did not, in fact, get approval from the so-called "international community" (since I assume you mean the UN, not the 37+ nations who were with us apparently don't count) for our action in Iraq.

1441 was the focus within the UN, but once we stepped outside the boundaries of their "approval," it wasn't and, I think, we reverted to the reasons Bush gave in his SOTU speech (the ones the UN wouldn't agree to include in 1441 because, well, let's face it, half the UNSC simply didn't care that the Iraqi people were oppressed, at least as long as it wasn't a Jew/Zionist or American doing the oppressing!).

What baffles me, Frank, is why you are not equally concerned with the integrity of the UN, whose members (like Russia) would say--prior to the war--that we had no right to invade Iraq unless we could prove that they had WMD, but now that the war is over, and we want them to lift sanctions against Iraq, they say:

""This decision cannot be automatic," says the Foreign Minister with a straight face. "For the Security Council to take this decision, we need to be certain whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not."

Am I the only one who sees something funny here?

First, we can't go in because--they say--there's no reason to, Iraq has no WMD (and we can't prove they do). NOW, they won't lift the sanctions because we can't prove they don't have WMD!

Don't mean to repeat myself, I'm just so in awe of the audacity of these people--the people whose approval you seem to think we needed, or ought to have had and, in the absence of which, we now owe the world justification for our actions.

It's simple really. We went to the UN with the only reasoning they would tolerate--the one that didn't directly impugn THEM as co-conspirators (that we knew of and could prove, yet...) with Saddam. Had we said anything about Saddam's tyranny or support for terrorism in the UN, we'd have had to call Syria on the carpet too. Had we talked about his fiscal corruption vis a vis oil for food, Kofi Annan himself would have developed a twitch. About the only card we had to play was the WMD card, which ought to tell you something really sad about the UN as a whole!

For more on how utterly absurd that organization is, and how little we ought to care what they, or their member nations (other than our coalition partners) think, read Mark Steyn's latest.

And as for you Walid...The Bush administration had nothing to do with supporting Saddam Hussein during the past 12 years. Jaques Chirac, Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder, however, DID. You cannot say we are more guilty for the Iraqi suffering during this time period than they are. In fact, even if you go back to the Iran/Iraq war, you can't say that we were the only ones who profitted from the outcome. If you want to hold other nations accountable for their roles in Saddam's rise to infamy, fine, but also recognize which ones tried to do something about it by correcting their mistake and removing his ass from power--using our own treasure and blood to do so!

Posted by: Deb on April 30, 2003 03:11 PM

And Frank, we have plenty that we can punish France for, with or without WMD. We should punish France for actively seeking to undermine our military efforts by sharing intelligence with the Iraqis before and during the war. If you think it's a coincidence that we're having trouble finding the WMD now, and that they helped Iraq know where we were and when we were coming, you are missing the mark in a big way.

Last time I checked, "Aiding and abetting" was a pretty serious thing between so-called "friend," but apparently you seem to think that the burden of proof is solely on us.

France has a lot of explaining to do, regardless of what the future tells us because we already know what's happened in the recent past.

Posted by: Deb on April 30, 2003 03:18 PM

Deb,

RE withholding reasons from the UN: this is another area where we will continue to disagree, but that's not how I want my government to act, not when talking to me as a citizen and not when talking to other countries. The foreign policy strategy doc issued last fall becomes really intimidating (and expensive!) once you allow our country to be more disingenuous (assuming that's a suitable substitution for 'evil').

RE aiding & abetting: I agree that's a problem, but more remains to be seen. So much has come up and been retracted, let's let some dust settle on this.

Posted by: Frank on April 30, 2003 03:36 PM

Frank, I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying we "withheld" reasons from the UN. I'm quite sure the exact opposite happened. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that Powell had a conversation with the French about all the reasons to get rid of Saddam, and they said "yes, yes, we know, but just give the inspectors 3 months under 1441, and then we'll talk about force." And Powell said (according to the article which I can't seem to find now): "OK, but you do realize that voting "yes" on 1441 means that after those 3 months, 'serious consequences' means force, right?" (I'm paraphrasing, naturally) And they said yes.

If you want to talk about disingenuous actions, the French should be receiving at least as much of your ire as the Bush administration.

We didn't keep anything a secret from the UN, or anyone else for that matter. They all watched the SOTU, for example, and the President's speech on 9/12 at the UN wasn't exclusively about WMD either. What I meant was that we didn't include all that in 1441 because we would NEVER have gotten a unanimous vote, for obvious reasons (too many people would be voting to oppose things they would soon be proven to have supported!). Getting everyone to agree publicly that WMD in the hands of Saddam are unacceptable was easier. After all, which nation was really going to veto 1441 with the evidence we ALL had on the table at that time? Even the inspectors agreed it was fair.

The disingenuousness came after they realized we actually expected them to live up to 1441, and you can't blame us for that, can you?

As for it remaining to be seen that the French helped our enemies, I think not. All that remains to be seen is how much power Powell is willing to give the old guard at the State Dept. who are just drooling after Chirac, trying desperately to patch things up between the US and France. I'm quite sure they have a LOT to do with retractions and the playing down of findings after they've been released to the press. Think about it...State doesn't want the French to think we're out to get them because they still want to kiss and make up.

Posted by: Deb on April 30, 2003 08:34 PM

Deb: What State and its apparatchicks want is to suck up to France so tht we can get back into the good graces of the UN and throw the Arab-Israel "peace process" into that den of thieves and tyrants. Their goal, unlike Rumsfeld's is to be loved rather than feared--a policy that never works.

Posted by: RUTH KING on May 1, 2003 07:22 AM

Walid

The only resolutions who have some strength are those of the security council, the resolutions of the general assembly count for nothing. The genral assmebly is dominated by a natural majority of third world dictatorships who will close ranks against democracies and the US. Isreal is one vote, the US is one vote. Saudi Arabia (the country who produced bin Laden , sho discriminates against Shia, who pushes girls into flaming buildings if they aren't wearing their veil) is one vote, Yemen (as Saudi Arabia but in addition it practices femal mutilation): one vote, Lybia: a terrorist state: one vote, Syria: another terrorist state: two votes (with its Lebenon puppet), Saddams's Iraq (who gassed Kurds, who stole their oil and their lands, who killed thousands and thousands of Shias): one vote. Sorry but I for one don't give ANY validity where a country as despicable as Saudi Arabia has any saying.

And sonce you are looking for justice in world I suggest you start advocating for retribution against those who have killed two million people in South Sudan and raped at least as many (BTW if you cut hands of thieves, let me guess what is the adequate punishment for rapers), I suggest you ask for the execution of the Al Quaidists who perpetrated countless atrocities in Afgnistan, I suggest you ask the displacement of the Arab settlers who stole Kurdish lands thanks to Saddam's protection, I suggest you call to Jihad against the Islamic sadists who perpetrated two hundred thousand murders (ie one hundred times more than Palestinian victims and their deaths have been far more horrible) and countless rapes in Algeria.

Until you do all those things I deny you the right to speak about Palestine. I am sick of the hypocisy and racism of those who people who weep on Palestinians and say nothing about victims non-Muslisms or Muslims who happen to not be ethnic Arabs.

Posted by: JFM on May 1, 2003 10:34 AM

It's ridiculous to pour out French wine that you've already paid for.....so drink it. Then, piss in the empty bottle and send it back. Recycle!

Posted by: Jerry Greenhoot on May 3, 2003 07:31 PM

Your are not the only one.

Posted by: whois on August 22, 2003 09:27 PM

Chirac and UN announces its first "Let's punish US" competition.
The very notion of pleasure in punishment may have been first articulated by a Frenchman, the Marquis de Sade. However, that should not prevent you readers from using their imaginations to help Chirac find the most enjoyable punishment for M. Bush and his fellow weasels.

Posted by: Jacques on September 7, 2003 01:29 PM

The meaning of life is that it stops.

Posted by: Deitz Ember on December 10, 2003 08:16 PM

Both dreams and people crash down.

Posted by: Rothschild David on December 20, 2003 11:06 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?