March 06, 2004

Here is the full text of the speech that PM Blair gave in Sedgefield, England on Friday:
Blair terror speech in full

No decision I have ever made in politics has been as divisive as the decision to go to war to in Iraq. It remains deeply divisive today.

I know a large part of the public want to move on. Rightly they say the Government should concentrate on the issues that elected us in 1997: the economy, jobs, living standards, health, education, crime.

I share that view, and we are. But I know too that the nature of this issue over Iraq, stirring such bitter emotions as it does, can't just be swept away as ill-fitting the pre-occupations of the man and woman on the street.

This is not simply because of the gravity of war; or the continued engagement of British troops and civilians in Iraq; or even because of reflections made on the integrity of the prime minister.

It is because it was in March 2003 and remains my fervent view that the nature of the global threat we face in Britain and round the world is real and existential and it is the task of leadership to expose it and fight it, whatever the political cost; and that the true danger is not to any single politician's reputation, but to our country if we now ignore this threat or erase it from the agenda in embarrassment at the difficulties it causes.

In truth, the fundamental source of division over Iraq is not over issues of trust or integrity, though some insist on trying to translate it into that.

Each week brings a fresh attempt to get a new angle that can prove it was all a gigantic conspiracy. We have had three inquiries, including the one by Lord Hutton conducted over six months, with more openness by government than any such inquiry in history, that have affirmed there was no attempt to falsify intelligence in the dossier of September 2002, but rather that it was indeed an accurate summary of that intelligence.

We have seen one element - intelligence about some WMD being ready for use in 45 minutes - elevated into virtually the one fact that persuaded the nation into war.

This intelligence was mentioned by me once in my statement to the House of Commons on 24 September and not mentioned by me again in any debate. It was mentioned by no-one in the crucial debate on 18 March 2003.

In the period from 24 September to 29 May, the date of the BBC broadcast on it, it was raised twice in almost 40,000 written parliamentary questions in the House of Commons; and not once in almost 5,000 oral questions.

Neither was it remotely the basis for the claim that Saddam had strategic as well as battlefield WMD. That was dealt with in a different part of the dossier; and though the Iraq Survey Group have indeed not found stockpiles of weapons, they have uncovered much evidence about Saddam's programme to develop long-range strategic missiles in breach of UN rules.

It is said we claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to Britain and was preparing to attack us.

In fact this is what I said prior to the war on 24 September 2002: "Why now? People ask. I agree I cannot say that this month or next, even this year or next he will use his weapons."

Then, for example, in January 2003 in my press conference I said: "And I tell you honestly what my fear is, my fear is that we wake up one day and we find either that one of these dictatorial states has used weapons of mass destruction - and Iraq has done so in the past - and we get sucked into a conflict, with all the devastation that would cause; or alternatively these weapons, which are being traded right round the world at the moment, fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, these fanatics who will stop at absolutely nothing to cause death and destruction on a mass scale.

"Now that is what I have to worry about. And I understand of course why people think it is a very remote threat and it is far away and why does it bother us. Now I simply say to you, it is a matter of time unless we act and take a stand before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together, and I regard them as two sides of the same coin."

The truth is, as was abundantly plain in the motion before the House of Commons on 18 March, we went to war to enforce compliance with UN Resolutions.

Had we believed Iraq was an imminent direct threat to Britain, we would have taken action in September 2002; we would not have gone to the UN.

Instead, we spent October and November in the UN negotiating UN Resolution 1441. We then spent almost 4 months trying to implement it.

Actually, it is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of UN Resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to chemical weapons and biological weapons.

As Dr Kay, the former head of the ISG who is now quoted as a critic of the war has said: "Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441". And "I actually think this [Iraq] may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought."

Then, most recently is the attempt to cast doubt on the attorney general's legal opinion. He said the war was lawful.

He published a statement on the legal advice. It is said this opinion is disputed. Of course it is. It was disputed in March 2003. It is today.

The lawyers continue to divide over it - with their legal opinions bearing a remarkable similarity to their political view of the war.

But let's be clear. Once this row dies down, another will take its place and then another and then another.

All of it in the end is an elaborate smokescreen to prevent us seeing the real issue: which is not a matter of trust but of judgement. The real point is that those who disagree with the war, disagree fundamentally with the judgement that led to war.

What is more, their alternative judgement is both entirely rational and arguable. Kosovo, with ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, was not a hard decision for most people; nor was Afghanistan after the shock of September 11; nor was Sierra Leone.

Iraq in March 2003 was an immensely difficult judgement. It was divisive because it was difficult. I have never disrespected those who disagreed with the decision.

Sure, some were anti-American; some against all wars. But there was a core of sensible people who faced with this decision would have gone the other way, for sensible reasons.

Their argument is one I understand totally. It is that Iraq posed no direct, immediate threat to Britain; and that Iraq's WMD, even on our own case, was not serious enough to warrant war, certainly without a specific UN resolution mandating military action. And they argue: Saddam could, in any event, be contained.

In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the characterisation of the threat.

We were saying this is urgent; we have to act; the opponents of war thought it wasn't. And I accept, incidentally, that however abhorrent and foul the regime and however relevant that was for the reasons I set out before the war, for example in Glasgow in February 2003, regime change alone could not be and was not our justification for war.Our primary purpose was to enforce UN resolutions over Iraq and WMD.

Of course the opponents are boosted by the fact that though we know Saddam had WMD; we haven't found the physical evidence of them in the 11 months since the war. But in fact, everyone thought he had them. That was the basis of UN Resolution 1441.

It's just worth pointing out that the search is being conducted in a country twice the land mass of the UK, which David Kay's interim report in October 2003 noted, contains 130 ammunition storage areas, some covering an area of 50 square miles, including some 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets and other ordnance, of which only a small proportion have as yet been searched in the difficult security environment that exists.

But the key point is that it is the threat that is the issue.

The characterisation of the threat is where the difference lies. Here is where I feel so passionately that we are in mortal danger of mistaking the nature of the new world in which we live.

Everything about our world is changing: its economy, its technology, its culture, its way of living.

If the 20th century scripted our conventional way of thinking, the 21st century is unconventional in almost every respect.

This is true also of our security.

The threat we face is not conventional. It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before. It is to the world's security, what globalisation is to the world's economy.

It was defined not by Iraq but by September 11th. September 11th did not create the threat Saddam posed.

But it altered crucially the balance of risk as to whether to deal with it or simply carry on, however imperfectly, trying to contain it.

Let me attempt an explanation of how my own thinking, as a political leader, has evolved during these past few years.

Already, before September 11th the world's view of the justification of military action had been changing.

The only clear case in international relations for armed intervention had been self-defence, response to aggression.

But the notion of intervening on humanitarian grounds had been gaining currency. I set this out, following the Kosovo war, in a speech in Chicago in 1999, where I called for a doctrine of international community, where in certain clear circumstances, we do intervene, even though we are not directly threatened.

I said this was not just to correct injustice, but also because in an increasingly inter-dependent world, our self-interest was allied to the interests of others; and seldom did conflict in one region of the world not contaminate another.

We acted in Sierra Leone for similar reasons, though frankly even if that country had become run by gangsters and murderers and its democracy crushed, it would have been a long time before it impacted on us. But we were able to act to help them and we did.

So, for me, before September 11th, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely that a country's internal affairs are for it and you don't interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance.

I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy, though I could see the horrible injustice done to its people by Saddam. However, I had started to become concerned about two other phenomena.

The first was the increasing amount of information about Islamic extremism and terrorism that was crossing my desk. Chechnya was blighted by it. So was Kashmir. Afghanistan was its training ground.

Some 300 people had been killed in the attacks on the USS Cole and US embassies in East Africa.

The extremism seemed remarkably well financed. It was very active. And it was driven not by a set of negotiable political demands, but by religious fanaticism.

The second was the attempts by states - some of them highly unstable and repressive - to develop nuclear weapons programmes, CW and BW materiel, and long-range missiles.

What is more, it was obvious that there was a considerable network of individuals and companies with expertise in this area, prepared to sell it.

All this was before September 11th. I discussed the issue of WMD with President Bush at our first meeting in Camp David in February 2001.

But it's in the nature of things that other issues intervene - I was about to fight for re-election - and though it was raised, it was a troubling spectre in the background, not something to arrest our whole attention.

President Bush told me that on September 9th 2001, he had a meeting about Iraq in the White House when he discussed "smart" sanctions, changes to the sanctions regime. There was no talk of military action.

September 11th was for me a revelation. What had seemed inchoate came together.

The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.

But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.

But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.

The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it.

When I spoke to the House of Commons on 14 September 2001 I said: "We know, that they [the terrorists] would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

"We know, also, that there are groups of people, occasionally states, who will trade the technology and capability of such weapons. It is time that this trade was exposed, disrupted, and stamped out.

"We have been warned by the events of 11 September, and we should act on the warning."

From September 11th on, I could see the threat plainly. Here were terrorists prepared to bring about Armageddon.

Here were states whose leadership cared for no-one but themselves; were often cruel and tyrannical towards their own people; and who saw WMD as a means of defending themselves against any attempt external or internal to remove them and who, in their chaotic and corrupt state, were in any event porous and irresponsible with neither the will nor capability to prevent terrorists who also hated the West, from exploiting their chaos and corruption.

I became aware of the activities of A Q Khan, former Pakistani nuclear scientist and of an organisation developing nuclear weapons technology to sell secretly to states wanting to acquire it.

I started to hear of plants to manufacture nuclear weapons equipment in Malaysia, in the Near East and Africa, companies in the Gulf and Europe to finance it; training and know-how provided - all without any or much international action to stop it.

It was a murky, dangerous trade, done with much sophistication and it was rapidly shortening the timeframe of countries like North Korea and Iran in acquiring serviceable nuclear weapons capability. I asked for more intelligence on the issue not just of terrorism but also of WMD.

The scale of it became clear. It didn't matter that the Islamic extremists often hated some of these regimes. Their mutual enmity toward the West would in the end triumph over any scruples of that nature, as we see graphically in Iraq today.

We knew that al-Qaeda sought the capability to use WMD in their attacks. Bin Laden has called it a "duty" to obtain nuclear weapons. His networks have experimented with chemicals and toxins for use in attacks.

He received advice from at least two Pakistani scientists on the design of nuclear weapons. In Afghanistan al-Qaeda trained its recruits in the use of poisons and chemicals.

An al-Qaeda terrorist ran a training camp developing these techniques. Terrorist training manuals giving step-by-step instructions for the manufacture of deadly substances such as botulinum and ricin were widely distributed in Afghanistan and elsewhere and via the internet.

Terrorists in Russia have actually deployed radiological material. The sarin attack on the Tokyo Metro showed how serious an impact even a relatively small attack can have.

The global threat to our security was clear. So was our duty: to act to eliminate it.

First we dealt with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, removing the Taliban that succoured them.

But then we had to confront the states with WMD. We had to take a stand. We had to force conformity with international obligations that for years had been breached with the world turning a blind eye.

For 12 years Saddam had defied calls to disarm. In 1998, he had effectively driven out the UN inspectors and we had bombed his military infrastructure; but we had only weakened him, not removed the threat.

Saddam alone had used CW against Iran and against his own people.

We had had an international coalition blessed by the UN in Afghanistan. I wanted the same now. President Bush agreed to go the UN route.

We secured UN Resolution 1441. Saddam had one final chance to comply fully. Compliance had to start with a full and honest declaration of WMD programmes and activities.

The truth is disarming a country, other than with its consent, is a perilous exercise. On 8 December 2002, Saddam sent his declaration. It was obviously false.

The UN inspectors were in Iraq but progress was slow and the vital cooperation of Iraqi scientists withheld. In March we went back to the UN to make a final ultimatum. We strove hard for agreement. We very nearly achieved it.

So we came to the point of decision. Prime ministers don't have the luxury of maintaining both sides of the argument.

They can see both sides. But, ultimately, leadership is about deciding.

My view was and is that if the UN had come together and delivered a tough ultimatum to Saddam, listing clearly what he had to do, benchmarking it, he may have folded and events set in train that might just and eventually have led to his departure from power.

But the Security Council didn't agree.

Suppose at that point we had backed away. Inspectors would have stayed but only the utterly naïve would believe that following such a public climbdown by the US and its partners, Saddam would have cooperated more.

He would have strung the inspectors out and returned emboldened to his plans.

The will to act on the issue of rogue states and WMD would have been shown to be hollow. The terrorists, watching and analysing every move in our psychology as they do, would have taken heart.

All this without counting the fact that the appalling brutalisation of the Iraqi people would have continued unabated and reinforced.

Here is the crux. It is possible that even with all of this, nothing would have happened. Possible that Saddam would change his ambitions; possible he would develop the WMD but never use it; possible that the terrorists would never get their hands on WMD, whether from Iraq or elsewhere.

We cannot be certain. Perhaps we would have found different ways of reducing it. Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord.

But do we want to take the risk? That is the judgement. And my judgement then and now is that the risk of this new global terrorism and its interaction with states or organisations or individuals proliferating WMD, is one I simply am not prepared to run.

This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.

Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.

When they talk, as they do now, of diplomacy coming back into fashion in respect of Iran or North Korea or Libya, do they seriously think that diplomacy alone has brought about this change?

Since the war in Iraq, Libya has taken the courageous step of owning up not just to a nuclear weapons programme but to having chemical weapons, which are now being destroyed.

Iran is back in the reach of the IAEA. North Korea in talks with China over its WMD. The A Q Khan network is being shut down, its trade slowly but surely being eliminated.

Yet it is monstrously premature to think the threat has passed. The risk remains in the balance here and abroad.

These days decisions about it come thick and fast, and while they are not always of the same magnitude they are hardly trivial.

Let me give you an example. A short while ago, during the war, we received specific intelligence warning of a major attack on Heathrow.

To this day, we don't know if it was correct and we foiled it or if it was wrong. But we received the intelligence.

We immediately heightened the police presence. At the time it was much criticised as political hype or an attempt to frighten the public.

Actually at each stage we followed rigidly the advice of the police and Security Service. But sit in my seat. Here is the intelligence. Here is the advice. Do you ignore it?

But, of course intelligence is precisely that: intelligence. It is not hard fact. It has its limitations. On each occasion the most careful judgement has to be made taking account of everything we know and the best assessment and advice available.

But in making that judgement, would you prefer us to act, even if it turns out to be wrong? Or not to act and hope it's OK?

And suppose we don't act and the intelligence turns out to be right, how forgiving will people be?

And to those who think that these things are all disconnected, random acts, disparate threats with no common thread to bind them, look at what is happening in Iraq today.

The terrorists pouring into Iraq, know full well the importance of destroying not just the nascent progress of Iraq toward stability, prosperity and democracy, but of destroying our confidence, of defeating our will to persevere.

I have no doubt Iraq is better without Saddam; but no doubt either, that as a result of his removal, the dangers of the threat we face will be diminished. That is not to say the terrorists won't redouble their efforts. They will.

This war is not ended. It may only be at the end of its first phase. They are in Iraq, murdering innocent Iraqis who want to worship or join a police force that upholds the law not a brutal dictatorship; they carry on killing in Afghanistan.

They do it for a reason. The terrorists know that if Iraq and Afghanistan survive their assault, come through their travails, seize the opportunity the future offers, then those countries will stand not just as nations liberated from oppression, but as a lesson to humankind everywhere and a profound antidote to the poison of religious extremism.

That is precisely why the terrorists are trying to foment hatred and division in Iraq. They know full well, a stable democratic Iraq, under the sovereign rule of the Iraqi people, is a mortal blow to their fanaticism.

That is why our duty is to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan as stable and democratic nations.

Here is the irony. For all the fighting, this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone.

Taking strong action is a necessary but insufficient condition for defeating. Its final defeat is only assured by the triumph of the values of the human spirit.

Which brings me to the final point. It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).

This may be the law, but should it be?

We know now, if we didn't before, that our own self interest is ultimately bound up with the fate of other nations.

The doctrine of international community is no longer a vision of idealism. It is a practical recognition that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in which they have a stake; so do nations that are free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress, tend to be stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind.

The best defence of our security lies in the spread of our values.

But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognises their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.

The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities. We have obligations in relation to each other.

If we are threatened, we have a right to act. And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalise their people.

We value the freedom and dignity of the human race and each individual in it.

Containment will not work in the face of the global threat that confronts us. The terrorists have no intention of being contained.

The states that proliferate or acquire WMD illegally are doing so precisely to avoid containment. Emphatically I am not saying that every situation leads to military action.

But we surely have a duty and a right to prevent the threat materialising; and we surely have a responsibility to act when a nation's people are subjected to a regime such as Saddam's.

Otherwise, we are powerless to fight the aggression and injustice which over time puts at risk our security and way of life.

Which brings us to how you make the rules and how you decide what is right or wrong in enforcing them. The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is a fine document. But it is strange the United Nations is so reluctant to enforce them.

I understand the worry the international community has over Iraq. It worries that the US and its allies will by sheer force of their military might, do whatever they want, unilaterally and without recourse to any rule-based code or doctrine.

But our worry is that if the UN - because of a political disagreement in its Councils - is paralysed, then a threat we believe is real will go unchallenged.

This dilemma is at the heart of many people's anguished indecision over the wisdom of our action in Iraq.

It explains the confusion of normal politics that has part of the right liberating a people from oppression and a part of the left disdaining the action that led to it.

It is partly why the conspiracy theories or claims of deceit have such purchase. How much simpler to debate those than to analyse and resolve the conundrum of our world's present state.

Britain's role is try to find a way through this: to construct a consensus behind a broad agenda of justice and security and means of enforcing it.

This agenda must be robust in tackling the security threat that this Islamic extremism poses; and fair to all peoples by promoting their human rights, wherever they are.

It means tackling poverty in Africa and justice in Palestine as well as being utterly resolute in opposition to terrorism as a way of achieving political goals. It means an entirely different, more just and more modern view of self-interest.

It means reforming the United Nations so its Security Council represents 21st century reality; and giving the UN the capability to act effectively as well as debate.

It means getting the UN to understand that faced with the threats we have, we should do all we can to spread the values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance and justice for the oppressed, however painful for some nations that may be; but that at the same time, we wage war relentlessly on those who would exploit racial and religious division to bring catastrophe to the world.

But in the meantime, the threat is there and demands our attention.

That is the struggle which engages us. It is a new type of war. It will rest on intelligence to a greater degree than ever before.

It demands a different attitude to our own interests. It forces us to act even when so many comforts seem unaffected, and the threat so far off, if not illusory.

In the end, believe your political leaders or not, as you will. But do so, at least having understood their minds.

Brilliant speech. Bravo, PM Blair.
I agree with every word and every statement (except that bit about "justice for Palestine." My idea of justice for "Palestine" is final and utter military defeat.)
President Bush and Tony Blair are clearly of one mind about the Global War on Islamist Terrorism and for that I thank God that we have such clear-minded leaders and such a great and brave friend and ally as the United Kingdom!

Iraqi cleric delays constitution signing

Plans to sign an Iraqi interim constitution collapsed yesterday, with leaders of the majority Shi'ite Muslims demanding changes that would give them dominant control of Iraq's presidency when the Americans hand over power June 30.
[...]
 Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said that the coalition was firm in its commitment to hand power over to an Iraqi government on June 30 and he sought to portray the delay as a positive step.
    
"If you want neat and tidy, there's dictatorship. Democracy is messy," Mr. Senor said.
   
 "It's messy whether it's in Baghdad, Washington or London. It's important for Iraqis to understand that they can raise these issues, have discussions like this. ... It's OK. Nobody's going to wind up in a torture chamber or rape room or mass grave after the fact."
   
 White House spokesman Scott McClellan, briefing reporters in Washington, called the signing postponement "democracy in action."
    
"The important thing is that Iraqi leaders are able to freely discuss these issues with one another and do so publicly," he said.

Let's hope it really is "democracy in action" and not the domination of Shi'ite fundamentalist theocracy in formation.
I don't like this "delay" coming so soon after the Ashoura bombings in Baghdad and Karbala which I'm fully ready to believe were sponsored by and probably literally carried out by Shi'ite "insurgents" from Iran (although there may have been some Iraqi Shi'ites helping, if not Baathist Sunnis, too).
I believe that the bombings were carried out to send a message to Al-Sistani to "play ball" with Tehran or else.
Don't forget that they occurred the day the constitution was originally due to be signed!
I think Al-Sistani's marching orders from the mullahs are to set up an Islamic Shi'ite republic in Iraq.
We all must fight this with everything we've got!
We didn't liberate Iraq from Baathist Sunni oppression to have it remake itself into Shi'ite oppression!
The Iraqis need and must have a secular democratic government: to that end, the CPA needs to treat Shi'ites and Sunni's as political parties (rather than or in addition to religious parties) and they need to get something going for Iraq not unlike our electoral college and Senate system, whereby less populous and represented regions (like those in the Kurdish areas and Baathist Sunnis in the middle of the country) have equal representation and voice.
Democracy is messy and I don't envy Paul Bremer or our Coalition troops who keep the peace there while these fanatical Shi'ites (Are there any other kind?) go absolutely wild when they're told "No."
But this Al-Sistani man needs to be put in his place and learn that he is only one leading cleric of the Iraqi Shi'ites--not even all of Iraq's Shi'ites follow him--and that democracy is not about mob rule.
Iraq must not and can not be allowed to become another Iran, which is where I think this is heading!

Senator John Kerry's Non-War on Terrorism By Barbara J. Stock
Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a "dialogue" [Quotation marks mine!--Jen] with terrorist regimes and apologize
for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.
[...]
Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.
[...]
The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. >They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."
[Which is also why I want to see President Bush re-elected!--Jen]

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."
[...]
Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

So, he'd "talk nice" with the mullahs...Yeah, that worked out really well for America under Jimmy Carter, as did his cave-ins to the NorKs, who are also wishing for the election of the Carter-like, Clintonian "dialogue"-loving Kerry:
North Korea Seen Unwise to Wait for End of Bush

North Korea is staunchly in the "anybody but George W. Bush" camp in the U.S. election, but South Korean critics of the president say Pyongyang would be unwise to stall nuclear talks and hope for "regime change" in Washington.
[...]
South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper captured this view in a cartoon that showed a jubilant North Korean leader Kim Jong-il calling expected Democratic Party nominee John Kerry's campaign headquarters and asking: "Is there anything I can do to help?"

North Korea's state controlled media have not commented at length on Kerry, but they have cited approvingly the U.S. senator's criticism of Bush's rejection of bilateral nuclear deal-making with Pyongyang.
[...]
North Korea analyst Paik Hak-soon of the Sejong Institute in Seoul said Pyongyang could not afford to let the rest of 2004 run out without progress on the 17-month-old nuclear crisis.
[Actually, the nuke crisis is really 10 years old, it's just that Clintoon and Madame (Albright) were too dim to realize that the joke was on them when they thought we'd made a "deal" with them.--J.T.]

"North Korea has serious issues such as security and a sluggish domestic economy," he said. "Actually North Korea is the one fighting against the clock."

Gee, and if Kerry wins (God forbid and I pray daily that He will.), then both Iran and North Korea can get whatever they want from the West and from the U.S. by using NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL!!!
Great plan, Sen. Ketchup!
(Oh, and Kerry, you should also get the Mother Theresa Award for all the compassion and concern you show for the millions of poor, oppressed, imprisoned and murdered citizens of North Korea and Iran, too!)
And stop talking about removing President Bush as a "régime change!"
We don't have a "régime" in this country, mister!
It's a constitutional republic.
Your pals Kimmy and the Mullahtollahs are the ones you need to yammer about "régime change"-ing!

Libya Admits 44,000 Pounds of Mustard Gas in Declaration of Chemical Weapons
Wow!
Did the right people know--or even guess!--that Mommar had this stuff?!?
Good thing he came clean with us!
Libya also showed us their sarin nerve gas program and allowed 3,300 bombs designed to deliver chemical payloads to be destroyed.
Hurray!
Why doesn't Hans Blix get involved here where he might be able to do some good instead of running around to the Liberal Left's favorite watering holes screeching about how Bush and Blair "lied" about Saddam's WMDs to go to war?

Ashcroft in Intensive Care with Pancreatitis

Att. Gen. Ashcroft is a good and decent man and has been a hard-working servant of the American people for the last 3 years.
Let's hope and pray that his pain and discomfort are eased and that he's back on his feet and recovered very soon!
God bless you, sir!

March 05, 2004

Consumer confidence rebounds over the past month
Fed Says Economy Continuing to Expand
U.S. jobless claims fall in late February 
Terrific news--good news for America and bad news for the Dimocrats' because it looks like their favorite talking point about the Bush administered economic downturn is disappearing before our very eyes!
The way the Dhimmicrat presidential candidates have been trash talking the economy of the last 3 years, I've been driving around my city looking (in vain) for hordes of homeless hobos who live in shanty towns and form long lines at the soup kitchen! They must be here somewhere...!
Sen. John F'n Ketchup was grousing about workers not getting enough overtime pay the other day;
what he forgot to point out was that they indeed have jobs to earn overtime at all because according to him, everyone's out of work and it's all Bush fault!
Liberalism and Leftism really are mental illnesses.

March 04, 2004

Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad
I hate the Left: they've forgotten 9/11 and they want the rest of America to forget, too.
Of course, President Bush's re-election campaign has included some pictures from 9/11; it was the defining event of his presidency and of all of our lives!
Ground Zero is not only "sacred ground" to those who lost loved ones there, but it's a battlefield to the rest of the country who also hold it dear and sacred, because 9/11 was an act of war on the USA!
We are sorry for these peoples' losses and Heaven knows they have a right to be bitter and a little mentally unhinged, but all of these 9/11 widows have also used the attacks for political reasons: Madames Breitweiser, Gabrielle and Kleinberg have all been prominent witnesses to the "Independent" 9/11 Commission and in addition, Ms. Gabrielle is co-chairman of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign (formed since the 9/11 attacks).
They want to blame 9/11 on Bush, on his Administration and its intelligence organs such as the CIA and FBI, and they even want to blame it on the Trade Towers themselves, as if, were the WTC to have been built better, it somehow wouldn't have as bad.
How do you build a building that will be "safe" when hit by a Boeing 737 with full gas tanks?
[Isn't it curious that the papers "found" these 3 particular ladies to express their "outrage" at the Bush ads, as if they were three of the hundreds of 9/11 bereaved who were chosen at random to comment on the "story?" Even more strangely, the story doesn't bother to mention their participation on the 9/11 Commission.]
Anything and everything is blamed for 9/11 except for the Islamist terrorists who actually perpetrated the attacks and Osama Bin Laden who declared war on America with his Al Queda fatwa-directed soldiers.
9/11--because of live television and its extreme terrorizing aspect--happened to all of us and while most of us did not personally lose someone that day, it felt almost as bad as if we had.
And it took no stretch of the imagination to feel imperiled, horrified and deathly afraid AS IF it were happening to us and our loved ones, friends and family.
They were us. We are them.
In his wonderful song Have you Forgotten singer Darryl Worley expresses the need for us to see the images of the attacks every day and I heartily agree.
We should never forget and we mustn't let the Dhimmicrats and the Leftist Media make us forget through intimidation techniques like this ploy today.
Show more 9/11 images, President Bush, and be proud that you've done such a marvelous job of taking the fight to the Enemy after 9/11 and that you've held the real perps responsible.
Once again, I extend my utmost condolences to those who did lose loved ones in the 9/11 attacks--I gave to the Red Cross, tried to give blood that night (because I've had TB, they couldn't use it) and gave to the Cantor Fitzgerald Fund, among other 9/11 victim funds that I contributed to.
I can't tell the bereaved how profoundly your personal loss was felt by me, a middle-aged lady you'll probably never know down here in Dallas, Texas and I'll bet millions of Americans feel the same way.
The surviving loved ones of the victims, however, should not try to lay private, personal claim to the attacks and everything around them because they belong to the nation, and to some extent, the world.
We've all had to deal with 9/11 and its aftermath and noone has done better than President Bush as our leader and Commander-in-Chief.
Keep the pictures. In fact, use more. Use a lot.
Never forget.

'We are an al-Qaeda family': Khadr son

A Canadian who was released from Guantanamo Bay in October says he lied about his family's ties with al-Qaeda and that he was trained to become a suicide bomber.

In a documentary aired Wednesday on CBC's The National, Abdurahman Khadr said his father was old friends with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and that his brothers attended terrorist training camps.

Maybe this will make those Liberal "victim" groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch lessen their whining about all the "innocent lambs" we have "unjustly" incarcerated down at Camp X-Ray!

Check it this marvelous news at the nifty Coalition Provisional Authority webpage!
Scouting to Come to Iraq
And we've got international phone service working... or we did until it was hit by missiles on Wednesday:
Iraqi Strikes Disrupt International Calls
And oil production is almost back to pre-war highs, too, in spite of multiple attacks on it:
Oil production in Iraq nearly at prewar level
We're there to stay and make democracy work!
Go USA and her allies!

March 03, 2004

Bitter campaign lies ahead for Kerry after euphoria of sweeping victory

Gay Couples Say 'I Do' in Oregon
IMHO, John F'in Ketchup's march to "victory" and the gay "marriage" controversy are neither interesting nor important [Face it, Kerry's a loser and gay "marriage" is wrong and wrong for this country.], yet the American people are being given wall-to-wall coverage of these "events" on the cable news shows as if they were.
Over at the big broadcast networks, it's even worse (I think. I don't watch them much.), with most of the prime time formats revolving around "real" stuff like Survivor, American Idol, etc. while all around us, the War on Terror continues and people are dying, some of them brave American soldiers and lately, hundreds of innocent Iraqis.
In Britain, once the Battle of Britain began and people were being killed nightly by falling Nazi bombs, the saying "Don't you know there's a war on?" became ubiquitous up until V-E day, 1945.
While we can fight this war (so far) without making huge sacrifices like instituting rationing and the draft and although there haven't been any big attacks on the Homeland since 9/11 doesn't mean we aren't at war or that our existence isn't threatened or that our soldiers aren't at risk overseas.
Iraq has just experienced what may be their 9/11 with these bombings in Karbala and Baghdad that killed almost 300 Shi'ite worshippers and injured 500 more.
Next door, Iran is ready to blow into almost full-blown revolution and the nuked-up mullahs have called out the secret police and Revolutionary Guard to put down ever more vocal demonstrations against the Mullahocracy and in solidarity with their Iraqi brothers and sisters.
Syria is promising to get rid of its WMDs to make nice with the EU...are they admitting they have WMDs now?
[This is like Libya coughing up their WMDs when we were targeting Saddam. "You talking to me?" I guess we were! Who knew?]
And when will the Syrians get out of Lebanon where they can shoot better at the Israelis?
The "Palestinians" are arguing amongst themselves about whether they should bury Arafat on the Temple Mount.
Why isn't he dead yet?
What will happen to the Paleostinian cause when he does die?
And will the last man standing in the Paleostinian areas turn out the lights when the fence is completed, the IDF has pulled out of Gaza and the slaughter of Muslims killing Muslims is over?
Back at the Riyahd ranch, the quiet, cunning Waahab Saudis are funding terror, plotting and conniving how to stay in power and keep the petrodollars flowing in for their exotic taste for Western luxuries in private and devout Sunni Islam in public--Gas here at the American pumps is going up and will continue to for this reason (a sacrifice for us not unlike gas rationing itself).
The latest round of NorK talks went nowhere and you know they've got nukes, a crazy leader and starving millions with a non-existent economy outside of arms sales to feed them.
Musharraf is apparently letting our soldiers into Pakistan to make raids to catch OBL, but then he's covering up the facts about the nuclear Walmart they had going there, probably with his knowledge and approval.
We are at war--Learn it, love it, live it.
And we're going to win it, too.
But we won't win it easily or soon if our information services like TV and print media don't get on the ball, drop the peacetime trivia (like the minutiae of the Dimocrat primaries) and give us full and proper coverage of real news.
We bloggers can't do it alone and I personally am getting exhausted after almost 2 years of this because it seems that we are doing more of the Media's work than ever.
They are so desperate to get back in power in 2004 that they've turned TV into almost non-stop DNC campaign ads!
Screw John Kerry and the rest of the 9 dwarves and their minions!
Their bitching and whining isn't winning this war and won't!
I'm on America's Team and that means I am pushing for complete and total Victory in the War on Islamist Terrorism.
My motto is "We can do it!" and we can and will.
Towards the end that there will never be another 9/11 or worse in this country (or any other), never forget "There's a war on." and don't let anyone or anything else let you forget either.

Listen to the Iranians, They Know

Monday night, following the gruesome massacres in Najaf and Baghdad at Shiite holy places, Iranians took to the streets all over the country: Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz above all. The demonstrations had a double-pronged message. First, that the people care more about freedom than about the celebration of Ashoura, the grave day of mourning for the murder of Hossein, the grandson of Mohammed, and dozens of his followers. And second, to accuse the regime of having orchestrated the slaughter in Najaf and Baghdad. The first reports even suggest that some of the security forces were fighting on the side of the demonstrators, although such reports are often wrong.

To surmise that the double bombings in Iraq on Monday were Iranian-backed works for me*[*In fact, 15 suspects have been picked up and 4 of them appear to be Iranian.--Jen], (although it could have been Baathist Sunnis), but all the mullahocracy knows now is that its existence is imperilled and a hit on the Middle East country that is currently occupied by the "Great Satan" is a blow for their jihad.
Unfortunately, the occasions when Muslims kill Muslims are the greatest advertisements for freedom and secular democracy that I know.
Keep striving for Liberty, Iranians, and to the rest of the Islamic world, I urge you to throw off the chains of IslamoFascism!
And as Mr. Ledeen himself always says, "Faster, please."

Mars Had Enough Water for Life, NASA Says

Parts of Mars were once "drenched" with so much water that life could easily have existed there, NASA said on Tuesday.

The robot explorer Opportunity has seen clear evidence of the main goal of Mars exploration -- that water once flowed or pooled on the Red Planet's surface.

The universe is full of wonders, isn't it?
What an amazing discovery and to think that this country is wealthy enough to fight a war and fund this NASA program (among other things), after having pioneered the know-how and technology to do so, as well!
Can't wait until we can send a manned mission there... who knows what else awaits us on the Martian surface!

California voters approve Schwarzenegger's plan to rescue budget

Californians overwhelmingly approved a plan Tuesday to borrow a record $15 billion to bail out the state budget, handing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a crucial victory Tuesday in his bid to turn around the world's sixth-largest economy.

A companion measure that would require a balanced budget also easily passed. Both measures had to be approved for either to take effect.

Excellent news for Californians and for the country!
We should all see the economy pick up quite a bit when these measures kick in; the world's 5th largest economy being in the doldrums wasn't helping anyone!

Bush congratulates Kerry in phone call

President Bush telephoned John Kerry on Tuesday night to congratulate him on wrapping up the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he looked forward to a "spirited contest."

"I'm thinking about you," Bush was quoted as saying.

President Bush is such a class act and a gentleman!
After he hung up with Senator Ketchup, I hope that he and Karl Rove lit up a couple of good cigars and gave each other high fives, because Kerry's going to be a great (terrible) opponent--everything about Kerry is awful whereas President Bush has a fine record to run on!
As Kerry himself said, "Bring it on!"

This is an excellent read and I dare say that columnist Jeff Jacoby would normally call himself a Liberal Democrat, but he's voting for Bush:
For Bush it's a step closer to reelection

March 02, 2004

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
This is so blatantly false, I can't believe it got written up as a "story!" (and posted in red on Drudge,too).
Clearly, there were more WMDs in 1995 when Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel led us to them.
The UN inspectors were still looking for WMDs in 1998 when Saddam kicked them out--why didn't they all just say "Ta-ta" and give him a pass if they knew he had no weapons?
And UNSCOM was eager to go back in 2002, when President Bush brought this matter back to their attention--why wasn't this "knowledge" that Saddam was WMD-free brought up then?
The Leftist Lying Media ramps their lying up another notch!

Breakthrough in Baghdad

Iraqis agree to a remarkably liberal interim constitution.

A paradox of post-Saddam Iraq is that American elites keep asserting that it's a quagmire even as progress keeps being made in Baghdad. The latest example is the unanimous weekend agreement by the 25 members of Iraq's Governing Council on the draft of an interim constitution.

Yes, there will be further violence, as the Baathist and jihadi enemies of Iraqi democracy make a desperate stand to break American will.
[Sadly, comes news that this has happened today:
Scores killed in Iraq Shia blasts]
But with the unanimous vote of the Governing Council--including Kurdish and fundamentalist Shiite leaders--there is now an Iraqi national consensus on the timing and shape of future self-rule.

What's more, that consensus is a remarkably liberal one. We've heard a lot of nonsense over the past two years that Muslims aren't ready for self-government, and that the Bush Administration was imperial in trying to "impose" it. But Iraqis of all stripes didn't need a lot of prodding to draft what is far and away the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, including what a senior coalition official calls "an extraordinary bill of rights."

Those include the rights to free speech and assembly, the free exercise of religion, habeas corpus and a fair and open trial. There will be gender equality and civilian control of the military. The interim government to be elected by next January will be parliamentary in nature, with a weak executive composed of a president and two deputies.

The role of Islam and the extent of federalism were understandably the most contentious issues. In the end it was agreed that Islam would be "a source" of legislation among many, not the principal source some Council members had wanted. They were mollified by the addition of another clause saying legislation could not contravene the tenets of Islam. This is admittedly something of a fudge, and Iraqi liberals will have to be on guard lest judges interpret that provision overbroadly in the future, but the bill of rights should offer protection here.

As for federalism, the Kurds won recognition that the future Iraq would be built around strong regional governments. They did not get the inclusion of oil-rich Kirkuk in their area for the time being, but they do get to keep their peshmerga militias for now.

A big unresolved issue is the shape of the caretaker government that will serve between the June 30 sovereignty handover and the elections. Here U.S. regent L. Paul Bremer will be playing catch-up. It's been clear for well over a month that the Byzantine U.S. caucus proposal for selecting a transitional government lacked enough Iraqi support. But rather than figuring out how to hold elections as early as possible, Mr. Bremer and his staff continued to peddle overblown worries about the lack of voter rolls while hoping U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi would salvage their plan.

This was obviously a stalling tactic, which needlessly risked the goodwill of Shiite leader Ayatollah Sistani. Fortunately, the Ayatollah's forceful advocacy of democracy has been tempered by a spirit of compromise.
[His democratic, cooperative spirit may be the reason his worshippers were hit today, I'm sorry to say.--Jen]
We are told he has signaled his acceptance of the emerging election timetable, as well as of an unelected caretaker government so long as its powers are limited. The simplest solution is to continue with the current Governing Council, since changes would likely become a source of needless contention.

We also wish Mr. Bremer and his team showed more concern regarding the mechanics that will govern the coming Iraqi vote. Perhaps the worst idea in this interim constitution is its 25% target for female representation in parliament. This arbitrary threshold isn't attained by many mature democracies--e.g., Congress. And a serious effort at meeting it would likely require a system of "proportional representation" like those found in Israel or in continental Europe. A proportional system--with voters choosing among lists of candidates fielded by powerful party bosses--would likely empower Islamist groups, as well as make it possible for the radical fringe (say neo-Baathists) to win seats.

The better idea is an Anglo-American constituency-based system, which would take advantage of Iraq's already evolving institutions of local democracy. Here voters in each district would choose a single deputy on a first-past-the-post basis. This would force candidates to run on centrist platforms, and best ensure that Iraq's many secular, middle-class neighborhoods would have like-minded representatives.

Electoral mechanics are one of those crucial details that will play an outsized role in determining whether President Bush's vision of a democratic Iraq becomes a permanent reality. Mr. Bremer would be smart not to leave this one to the U.N., but to seal a deal on a process that maximizes liberals' chances before June 30 arrives. Meantime, he and the Governing Council deserve congratulations on their progress toward Iraqi democracy.

Amen.
I am delighted to read this report and share it with you, that democracy is making great strides towards being a reality in Iraq!
And to think only a year ago, our troops were still waiting for the word to go into the country...it's almost unbelievable!
Hurray for Paul Bremer and the Coaliton authorities and hurray for the Iraqi people themselves for taking up the tools of Liberty and not succumbing to Islamic theocracy like their Iranian neighbors!

March 01, 2004

A Shameful Past

Don't play the Vietnam card with me, John Kerry.

The Vietnamization of the 2004 presidential campaign has unfortunately begun, thanks to the likely Democratic nominee. But John Kerry's service--Vietnam, in case you haven't heard--doesn't exist in a vacuum. His 19-year Senate record is at long odds with that short naval career, just as his vote to send troops to liberate Iraq is at odds with his later vote not to fund the mission. His supporters ask us to note his heroism in combat. We have, ad nauseam. But more important, and the thing he doesn't want discussed, is the well-documented though less well-known hypocrisy of those who use his service to further their antimilitary agenda.

I'm the daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. "Black Bart" Bartholomew, a First Air Cavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on Thanksgiving Day 1968, when I was eight years old. I'm a former journalist with a military newspaper, a U.S. Marine widow, and I am appalled at Mr. Kerry's latest assertions that our president "has reopened the wounds of Vietnam." For months, I've heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past. I think we need to see the whole picture.

Liberal critics of American foreign policy have claimed they "support the troops"--but they're obviously hoping we have short memories. Many of us will never forget the hundreds of lawyers they dispatched to Florida in 2000 to make sure military absentee ballots did not get counted (some sources say that two out of three military voices in Florida were never heard). That was after the Clinton administration initiated rules making it more difficult to vote on overseas military bases.
[I'll never forget the righteous outrage of the military during the Florida recount--ever! And I don't think they will either, especially now that they're actively defending our security at home and abroad!--Jen]

Mr. Kerry and his party overwhelmingly oppose Pentagon funding and equipment, and make life miserable for our services on Capitol Hill. The liberals who sneered at the concept of duct tape keeping us safe last year
[Who can forget them making fun of us? Not me!--J.T.] are the same congressmen who find it acceptable when our brave and resourceful Marines must use it to hold together 40-year-old helicopters in combat. My brother Jay, a CH-46 pilot, used it during the first Gulf War, and our guys are still flying those same helicopters a decade later.

Mr. Kerry has tried to distance himself from some anti-war activists and surround himself with veterans, yet his anti-military voting record speaks much louder and resonates with those of us who are affected by the results.

Kerry supporters are the ones who would applaud my high school social studies teacher, a draft dodger who in 1976 banished me to the library for the duration of our Vietnam unit because I questioned his one-sided presentation of our troops as baby killers. Dare I say, these are the same people who spat on our guys back in the 1960s and disdained them in the '70s.

These were the people who in 1992 mocked Ross Perot's running mate, Adm. James Stockdale, a true hero and former prisoner of war, after his hearing aid (legacy of Viet Cong torture masters) gave him trouble during a televised debate. They downplayed Bob Dole's military service in 1996. And these are the same people who just last year yelled antimilitary slurs at dependents driving vehicles with Defense Department stickers--even picked on military kids about what their daddies did for a living. These are the Americans who love to enjoy the liberties of our land, yet have little understanding about those who actually risk their lives to ensure they exist. Until, of course, their candidate can claim that service on his résumé, and then they know all about us.

As the kid of a real war hero who did not come back, I'd like to comment not on Kerry's service, but his postservice activities. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry's organization of choice when he returned from his shortened tour of duty in Vietnam (and his springboard to fame), was known to me even as a child. The organization, while providing a place for angst-ridden vets to land after coming home, had an awful effect on those of us who lost our fathers.

It was bad enough to hear our dads criticized by those who hated the military, but to hear vets allege rampant war crimes and call their fellow soldiers evil before all the world really twisted the knife. Mr. Kerry led the way, proud in the company of Jane Fonda and others we believed had caused the deaths of good men. This group's testimony tarnished honorable actions. After taking the oath to preserve and protect, they grandstanded, throwing service awards in a show of defiance that diminished each sacrifice. Their stories dominated while the stories of thousands of honorable vets went untold. I don't hold it against them after so many years, but I'm dead sure I don't want their darling Kerry, the man who voted against funding our guys in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to be our next commander in chief.

In 2004, nothing is more important than continuing to protect America and fight terrorism. President Bush has led, not perfectly but earnestly. He has put much on the line to do what he believes is right. And he needs our continued support in the months to come.

I appreciate Ms. Armstrong sharing her story with the nation, even though it was probably still painful to do so.
John Kerry is a despicable scumbag and should have had enough personal shame to not insult the country by running for national office.
His biography and his Senate record show us a "man" who has sold out virtually every value that Americans hold dear; why he should even care to be our Chief Executive is beyond me.
Apparently, marrying $500 million isn't enough for him; he wants to enjoy the power of being the leader of the free world, too.
But it's where he would lead it that frightens the daylights out of me.
I love President Bush and would support him regardless, but if he weren't running, I do believe I'd vote for Attila the Hun for President rather than John Kerry.
Kerry's a nightmare and red-blooded Americans should be insulted and seriously affronted as patriotic citizens that he's not only running but that worse still, he's the apparent Dimocrat nominee.
For shame, Democrats!
(But then, they're shameless, aren't they?)

Haiti’s Requiem for Nation-Building

America can't right every wrong.

Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has fled. The island country is in crisis. The U.S. is sending Marines as part of a multilateral peacekeeping force. Instead of occupying yet another failed state, however, Washington should declare its era of nation-building to be over.

A decade ago the Clinton administration, fresh from its fiasco in Somalia, decided to save Haiti at the point of a gun — or, more accurately, the guns of 20,000 American soldiers. Stated Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch, "we are determined to return democracy to Haiti." White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers similarly explained: "It is time to restore democracy to Haiti."

The military leaders fled. President Aristide returned. America's democracy campaign triumphed.

Unfortunately, though President Aristide had been democratically elected, he acted more like murderous French revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre, to whom he compared himself, than George Washington. Aristide intoned the so-called necklace — a tire filled with flaming gasoline which was frequently placed around the necks of his opponents — to be a beautiful thing.

Haiti moved from a military dictatorship to a presidential tyranny. Government was arbitrary; elections were rigged; Aristide's thugs terrorized his opponents; poverty was immiserating.

Even as its problems festered, Haiti disappeared from Washington's radar screen. The Clinton administration was not inclined to revisit the wisdom of returning Aristide to power.

To the contrary, Washington moved on to new nation-building adventures in Bosnia and Kosovo. Both occupations continue, with artificial territorial entities ruled by outside bureaucracies masquerading as democracies and countries.
[Worse still, the U.S. weighed in on the side of Al Queda-trained Islamist terrorists, too.--Jen]

But last fall Aristide's luck ended. He fell out with Amiot Metayer, head of the Cannibal Army, a street gang that acted as Aristide's foot soldiers. Metayer was murdered, Aristide's followers were blamed, and the Cannibal Army switched sides.

Early in February the renamed Gonaives Resistance Front began seizing control of Haitian cities, as other opponents of Aristide, some democrats, some thugs, joined in. The regime collapsed.

Naturally, Washington was expected to step into the breach. The Bush administration proposed a power-sharing agreement which would have kept Aristide in power for the remainder of his term, until February 2006. The opposition understandably said "No thanks."

In contrast, Aristide pushed for a foreign military presence to maintain his power. "If we have a couple of dozen of international soldiers, police, together right now, it could be enough to send a positive signal to those terrorists," as he described the gangsters he had once helped arm.

Even as his thugs took over the streets of Port-Au-Prince, the capital, he waxed humanitarian. "Once they realize the international community refuses [to allow] the terrorists to keep killing people, we can prevent them" from killing more people, said Aristide.

He had some American allies. Jesse Jackson, never hesitant to meddle in conflicts not his own, demanded U.S. intervention: "Unless something happens immediately, the president could be killed. We must not allow that to happen to that democracy."

But few foreign nations had either any illusion about Haiti being a real democracy or any desire to buttress Aristide's discredited, authoritarian rule. The Bush administration refused to countenance another military invasion to sustain America's one-time symbol of democracy.

So Aristide had little choice but to flee. Causing Washington to try again.

"The government believes it is essential that Haiti have a hopeful future," says President George W. Bush. "The United States is prepared to help" end the violence in the island nation.

The desire to intervene is understandable. Haiti is in chaos; the people are poor; the island is unstable. Who wants a failed state off of America's southern coast?

But, in fact, Haiti has been a failed state for 200 years. There never was a time when the country was not in chaos, the people were not poor, and the government was not unstable. There was no democracy to restore in 1994 and there is none now.

Nor was the 1994 invasion Washington's only attempt to fix Haiti. The U.S. occupied the island from 1915 to 1934.
[There's a little known fact they don't teach us in American History class!--J.T.]
Sadly ephemeral were any benefits arriving with U.S. troops nine decades ago. Just like a decade ago.

America now is talking about having an international force protect a government run by Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre while elections are organized. France, Haiti's one-time colonial ruler, has developed an even more complex five-point plan to rescue Haiti.

It likely will take more than five points to save the island, but never mind. If France wants to try, it should be encouraged to do so. Washington should stay out, however.

The U.S. has no strategic or security interest in Haiti. Economic ties are minimal.
[Of course, to the Liberal Left Dems, this is only kind of country where our military should be involved, to show that Americans are "bigger" people who "care."]

There's an obvious humanitarian crisis, but it is no different than that present in two or three score other nations around the globe. Haiti's unique threat is the possible generation of a stream of refugees; that problem is neither new nor serious. Indeed, the U.S. could easily assimilate anyone desperate and dedicated enough to make it across the narrow strait to Florida.

At the same time, Washington's military is stretched to the breaking point around the globe.
[Yeah. We are at war...or did the Dems forget that again?--Jen]
Some 110,000 soldiers and Marines are being rotated into unpleasant and deadly duty in Iraq. Another 10,000 are fighting in Afghanistan. Nearly 10,000 more remain on station patrolling the failed states of Bosnia and Kosovo. Even larger garrisons protect prosperous and populous states in East Asia and Europe.

With Pentagon officials worried about the impact of increasingly frequent and lengthy foreign deployments on both the active and reserve forces, it would be foolish to add another difficult and unnecessary overseas posting to the mix. America's unique international advantage is war fighting. Let other states, like France, provide occupation troops where and when necessary.

Few countries have had as tragic an experience as has Haiti. But it is neither America's purpose nor within Washington's power to right every wrong. The U.S. should stop trying to do so.

Right on, Mr. Bandow!
The Dimocrats, as usual, are living in the 9/10 world where America is still enjoying seemingly unlimited peace and prosperity, in the Clintonian dream world where they can kick the can of history down the road and where America has the "luxury" to show they "care" about small foreign crises by sending expeditionary "peacekeeping" troops.
That world vanished on 9/11 with the Twin Towers.
Good military commanders know they must pick their battles and it's time for President Bush to stop letting the Left and their minions in the media set his and this country's agenda!
(First, there was the new skirmish of gay marriage to reinflame the culture war and now this call for military intervention in Haiti while our troops are undergoing the largest troop rotation since WWII.)
While I feel for the poor, miserable people of Haiti, the United States must have its priorities now.
America won't be around to keep helping Haiti if we've been nuked by the Islamists!
And how many other fires of Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's failed foreign policies are we going to have to put out (besides North Korea and Iran)?