Posted 12:10 PM by Steve
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is
worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a
miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept
so
by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stewart Mill-

Posted 12:10 PM by Steve
Want proof that all the anti-war advocates are just BUSH BASHERS? Where were they when Clinton espoused nearly identical policies? Please peruse the following:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed
Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by
British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and
biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their
purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed,
the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam
Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear
arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation
of my national security team, to use force in Iraq, why we have acted now and
what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer
cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors, called UNSCOM. They are
highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee
the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass
destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that
capability. The inspectors undertook this mission, first, seven and a half
years ago, at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy
its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
With Saddam, there's one big difference: he has used them, not once but
repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a
decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud
missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iran -- not only
against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish
civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt
today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons
again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM, as Iraq has
sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion,
we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down. Faced with
Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic
pressure on Iraq, backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N.
Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that
he immediately come into compliance. Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman -- warned that
Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It
was only then, at the last possible moment, that

Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made -- and I quote -- "a
clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons
inspectors."

I decided then to call off the attack, with our airplanes already in the
air, because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the
right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove
his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what "unconditional cooperation"
meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along
with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if
Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay,
diplomacy or warning.

Now, over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried
out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this
weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's Chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results
to U.N. Secretary General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and
profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to
cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.
Here are some of the particulars:

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For
example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party, and said it
will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make
no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary
evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs
related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological
weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents, and prevented
Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the
building, removing not just documents, but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the
inspectors; indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons related
documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM report concludes --
and again I quote -- "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be
made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the
absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must, regrettably, be recorded again
that the Commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the
Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in
Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their
effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed
the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of
the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international
community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons
inspectors. Saddam
has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act, and act now. Let me explain why.


First, without a strong inspections system, Iraq would be free to retain
and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs --
in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get
away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the
United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein
to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. And some day, make no mistake, he will
use it again, as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance,
not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S.
power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have
allowed Saddam to shatter the inspections system that controls his weapons of
mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force
that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security
team, including the Vice President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National Security
Advisor, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of
mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. At the
same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act
recklessly, you will pay a heavy price.

We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift
response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to
prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's
report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse forces and protect his
weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to
initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the
Muslim world, and therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and
the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very
much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential
action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great
Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike.
I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now
and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to
be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he
poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons
of mass destruction, and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy
of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes
threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass
destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging
allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The
credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is
the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail
his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.


Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the
international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions
have caused Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used
to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food,
for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no
quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food
program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors
and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens
the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the
world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi
government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government
that respects the rights of its people.

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will
strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and
work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces
are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are
focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi
casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi
civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must
be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have
absolutely no doubt: If he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond
forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price
of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a
far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he
will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of
mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are
acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the
other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before
the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to
face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we
are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we
will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference
between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we'll have a
remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past -- but only
if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is
doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out
this vital mission, and their families. And may God bless America.

END 6:15 P.M. EST

December 16, 1998
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT CLINTON
6:00 P.M. EST

Posted 10:28 PM by Steve
Being honest about European hostility

Generally speaking, Europe believes in socialism, while America believes in capitalism. The French, German, English and scandinavian countries contain large majorities of people who believe in socialism as fervently as any religious zealot. To many Americans, socialism is only an economic system, but for Western Europeans it has largely replaced Christianity as their faith because in their view it contains moral dogma in addition to "sound" economic policy

The United States not only rejects socialism; it is the chief obstacle to its spread -- because of its military and cultural might, and especially because of its economic success. Indeed, America is the chief impediment to the spread of both Islam and socialism. This explains the unity of leftist and Muslim activists. Though theoretically they have nothing in common, as Osama bin Laden just announced, "in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists" -- opposing America.

Second, many Western Europeans believe that the abolition of national identities is a moral necessity. Europe's war-filled past is full of nationalist rhetoric. Europe's elite believe in the United Nations because outside of some democratic world council they have little power.

Just as Europeans were losing faith in their national identities, the United States came to believe even more strongly in its distinct national identity. While Europeans and the American Left have more faith in the moral judgment of the United Nations, where Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Syria and China vote in the Security Council, most Americans have more faith in America.

Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society. Another major ideological consequence of the World Wars was the belief that wars are wrong. They are not in a position of strength and so are unable to stand up against evil. Many in Europe tried to appease Hitler and, after that, the Soviets. Many Europeans feared, but avoided conflict with, Communism. Now they fear and wish to avoid conflict with Saddam Hussein.

America, on the other hand, realizes that it is sometimes better to fight evil. The last time many Europeans demonstrated against America was when President Ronald Reagan put Pershing missiles in Europe. Europeans thought that confronting the Soviets was provocative and wrong. It turns out that the pressure, both economic and political, that Reagan applied was a necessary ingredient to cause the Soviet regime to crumble.

Fourth, Europe passionately affirms secularism, while America remains the most religious among the industrialized democracies. In this sphere, too, either America or Europe is right. And the predominance of America, a religious country -- one, no less, that affirms the religion the European elites have rejected -- infuriates the Europeans.

Positing no transcendent or religious basis for an objective and universal standard of good and evil, Europe disdains moral absolutes and moral judgments. Whether it was President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or President Bush labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," Europeans (and the American Left, whose values are identical) found such moral labeling contemptible.

Indeed our president personifies all that Europe dislikes in America. He comes from the business world, wears an Americans flag on his lapel, is ready to go to war against an evil regime, and believes deeply in God, in Christianity and America's Judeo-Christian identity. He even wears cowboy boots.

Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Great Seal of the United States depict the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. He and the other Founders knew that America's future was and must be based on leaving Europe. It is truer now than ever.


-excerpts from Dennis Prager's column on Townhall.com

Posted 4:07 PM by Steve
OK for all of you out there that are a little slow here is the airtight case for war:

THE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ

It’s high time for some right thinking in rebuttal to those objecting to our imminent assault on Iraq as we prosecute our war against Jihadistan. Despite those who would insist we are “about to go to war,” we have been at war since 11 September, 2001. Our principal adversary is not Iraq, but Jihadistan, that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach, inhabited by al-Qa’ida terrorists and other Islamists who are targeting the U.S.

The “Islamic World” of the Quran recognizes no political borders. While orthodox Muslims (those conforming to the teachings of the “pre-Medina” Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic World are indoctrinated with the “post-Mecca” Quran and Hadith (Mohammed’s teachings), which call for “Jihad” or “Holy War” against all “the enemies of God.” (Thus, the enemy is termed “Jihadistan,” or “nation of holy war.”)

Shortly after al-Qa’ida’s 9-11 attacks, President George Bush said: “This WAR on terrorism will be fought on a number of fronts, in different ways. The front lines will look different from the wars of the past.” A year later, Iraq’s support for al-Qa’ida was clear, prompting Mr. Bush to declare, “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.” In his most recent address to the nation, President Bush said, “It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.”

Indeed, this conflict won’t be resolved diplomatically, and the war al-Qa’ida launched on our soil 17 months ago won’t be won defensively: this enemy can only be defeated in offensive, preemptive strikes. As Prussian general and military philosopher Karl von Clausewitz wrote in the early 19th century: “War is the continuation of policy by other means. ... The best form of defense is attack.” The most effective policy to defend our homeland front against al-Qa’ida, is taking offensive action against al-Qa’ida’s state-sponsors, and that means in this phase of the campaign, “regime change” in Iraq.

But some Sociocrats and their cadre of Leftmedia talkingheads are doing what they do best—attempting to convert this perilous campaign into political capital. Their arguments are so ludicrous that even Demo Sen. Evan Bayh complained: “I don’t understand those who want to wait until the threat [from Iraq] is imminent. Do we wait until the missiles are launched, until the smallpox is in the country? The consequences of error could be catastrophic.”

The Federalist has compiled a list of the Left’s complaints and objections to the prosecution of the warfront with Iraq. Let us disabuse them of their self-serving and courage-deficient delusions:

Look who we were supporting in the 80s... It was 24 years ago this week, February 11, 1979, that a stated enemy of the U.S., the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized power in Iran, and seized the American embassy, thereby inaugurating the modern Islamic revolutionary movement. The Carter administration decided that one way to contain that revolution was to keep supporting Iraq’s war with Iran. Protecting legitimate U.S. national interests sometimes makes for strange bedfellows around the globe. However, two wrongs—supporting murderous regimes then and now—don’t make a right.

Bush is a cowboy—we can’t go to Iraq without a unified “international community” front... Perhaps the most widespread mantra of the Left is to accuse President Bush of having a “cowboy mentality”—a foreign policy propensity to go-it-alone, not to mention imperialistic ambitions. The President is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This includes imminent threats to national security, with or without international consensus. Fortunately, an international consensus has emerged, “old Europe” notwithstanding.

Iraq is not an imminent threat... The information presented to the UN Security Council by Sec. of State Colin Powell last week is just the tip of the iceberg. For 16 months, the exposure of numerous connections (SEE BELOW) between Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida network provides more than adequate justification for a preemptive strike against Iraq. And the WMD threat from Iraq is not symmetric; rather, it is asymmetric in that there is imminent danger that Saddam has already provided, or certainly will provide WMD to surrogates like al-Qa’ida, who will then deploy or detonate those weapons in a major U.S. urban center—or that of an ally.

There is no evidence of WMD in Iraq—U.N. resolution 1441 specifically says that Iraq must provide a complete list of weapons of mass destruction that WE ALREADY KNOW THEY HAVE. Iraq has failed to do this or cooperate completely with the inspectors. The U.S. has now presented ample evidence that Iraq is in possession of WMD—most recently in the very public forum of Secretary Colin Powell’s briefing of the UN Security Council.


We talk with North Korea, so why not Iraq?... Many pundits have expressed concern that the Bush administration is devoting too much time to the issue of Iraq, while the more pressing issue of the North Korean nuclear program looms large, but is only given lip service. (As we recall, President Bush included North Korea prominently among the three nations forming the “Axis of Evil.”) What, exactly, has “talk” achieved in either case?

Of course, there is a substantial difference in motivations of Baghdad and Pyongyang. While Saddam Hussein maintains ties with terrorist organizations bent on the destruction of the West, posing a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States, Kim Jong Il is—not for the first time—applying pressure to his neighbors and the U.S. in order to obtain economic concessions.

However, no one is ignoring the North Korean threat. The U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Kenneth Brill, noted that “the time is right for the Security Council to begin considering this issue, [because Pyongyang’s] nuclear weapons program poses a direct threat to international peace and security. ... [The threat that North Korea] will sell fissile material to rogue states and terrorists is too great to ignore.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has already raised the specter of this scenario; look for significant attention to be paid to the Korean Peninsula in the aftermath of a second Gulf War. Additionally, it will become a much easier task to "negotiate" with rogue nations like North Korea once they have witness the devastation of Iraq's military capabilities on the 24 hour news networks. Senator John McCain raised the point that in 1992, many Republicans objected to the appeasement of North Korea, President Clinton sent former President Carter to North Korea to "negotiate". It turns out that Carter and Clinton thought giving North Korea a light-water reactor would be a neat idea. North Korea used this to create fissile material for a weapon now aimed at us. For some reason, these actions earned Carter the Nobel "Peace" prize!! McCain's point is that we balked at playing hardball in 1992 and we are reaping what we sowed. We surely can't make the same mistake with Iraq.

This war is just about oil... While some detractors suggest prosecuting the Iraqi front is solely about oil, in the Middle East, oil is intrinsic to regional stability, and regional stability is intrinsic to the national security interests of the United States—including U.S. demand for Middle East oil.

Prosecuting Iraq will invite escalated terrorist attacks... Indeed, the front with Iraq in our war with Jihadistan is the most perilous yet. At best, successfully disarming Iraq will cut off one major WMD resource for al-Qa’ida and other terrorist organizations. At worst, al-Qa’ida has already been supplied some WMD by Iraq. For sure, al-Qa’ida IS planning new attacks against the U.S. using various conventional and WMD assaults, with the objective of reducing our economy to ruins. Will the prosecution of the Iraqi front “invite” these attacks—make the inevitable happen sooner rather than later? Perhaps it will accelerate some conventional, biological or chemical attacks. Disarming Iraq will, in effect, disarm a great number of al-Qa’ida operatives—but it will NOT disarm all of them. However, failing to put Saddam out of business will ensure that al-Qa’ida operatives are fully armed.

The good news—for the 17 months since 9-11, al-Qa’ida “sleeper cells” now positioned in the U.S. have been quiet. Our intelligence sources estimate that there may not be enough of those cells to expend them on conventional attacks (car bombs, homicide bombers, et al.). They conclude this means that those cells have not yet acquired nuclear-strike capability. It's ironic that the same people who claim that there is no proof of terror ties with Iraq claim that attacking Iraq will stir up more terrorist attacks? It completely undermines their own argument!

The Iraqi front with Jihadistan is replete with pitfalls. There are going to be many casualties—both military and civilian. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared: “There are moments in history when the judgment and the resolve of free nations are put to the test. This is such a moment. The security environment we are entering is the most dangerous the world has seen. The lives of our children and grandchildren could well hang in the balance.”

President Bush understands the enormous risks and implications of this conflict. No one has suggested that prosecuting the front with Iraq is a panacea; the war with Jihadistan does not end there.