In football it's referred to as "piling on."

It's an illegal play, where opponents jump on the ball carrier after the whistle's been blown. It's a personal foul that results in the maximum (yardage) penalty being assessed. In the political arena however, illegal pot shots and reckless attacks in the midst of a contest, are just the way the game is played in an election year.

Think about it. Since the last election ended with claims that President Bush was "selected not elected," the only break we've had from the divisive rhetoric was a brief respite after 9/11. Since then, it's been a never-ending series of myopic bad news, spurious committee investigations, tell-all books, and congressional pronouncements intended to embarrass this administration. As if that were not enough, Hollywood's liberal elite are planning to release several so-called "documentary dramas" of a similar genre before the election.

Although we should expect spirited debate on the issues in any free society, when it comes to the politics of half-truths and character assassination -- in the midst of prosecuting a war on terrorism -- when does partisan dissent amount to treason? What could possibly justify the outrageous political vitriol from the liberal left, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America? As the only remaining "super-power" on earth, America can only be defeated from within. Wake-up partisans, "united" we stand, divided we fall.

This month, in advance of the 9/11-commission report filing, we have posted five articles that are intended to give you an objective assessment of the truth. We begin with a concise chronology of the events that led to the 911 attacks, authored by Ann Coulter. Next, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exposes the hypocrisy of "selective" memory and outrage, as shown by the media during the Iraq conflict. An article by Hal Lindsey follows, presenting irrefutable evidence of the just cause that motivated war. A transcript of President Bush's recent national address follows this, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq, and the specific steps we're taking to achieve our goals. Finally, I re-post a personal commentary, made in advance of Operation Iraqi Freedom, to demonstrate that advocacy for prosecuting a "just war" then, should stand the test of retrospect now.

We trust that our readers are keeping score in an objective manner, and that those who have taken a stand for righteousness, against such disheartening opposition -- will ultimately be vindicated this November.


How 9-11 happened

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: March 31, 2004
6:40 p.m. Eastern

© 2004 Universal Press Syndicate

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

What a surprise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed "one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics" by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC's "This Week," "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today," CNN's "Larry King Live" and CNBC's "Rivera Live."



Democracies and Double Standards
Our enemies have no business standing in judgment of America.

BY NEWT GINGRICH
Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The media coverage of the violations of American law against Iraqi prisoners is in peril of setting a dangerous double standard for America and the Arab world. The administration must be very careful in explaining how we feel and what we will do. Otherwise our enemies will use our own words as an excuse to exploit this double standard.

To be clear, a very small number of Americans did a terrible thing at Abu Ghraib. And because we live under the rule of law, and we take protecting the Constitution seriously, the accused will be investigated and, when guilty, punished. The incidents themselves are to be condemned.

Some have called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. However, he has led the process of exposing the wrongdoing and investigating the charges. Moreover, he will see to it that the accused get a fair and honest trial, in which there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved and the guilty are punished. That due process is something we as Americans should be proud of, and unequivocal about. In view of Mr. Rumsfeld's significant contribution to our security, this incident will be but a footnote.

Explaining our anger at these misdeeds and our determination to punish the wrongdoers is appropriate. Appearing overly contrite or overly apologetic, however, will be a big mistake.

Not surprisingly, the anti-American left in our own country and in Europe--with its selective memory, remembering forever any American mistake while forgetting every anti-American and antihuman atrocity by others--is already on radio and television exploiting this as an opportunity to condemn America.

The pan-Arab media, with their selective outrage, honor and give prominence to terrorists and barbaric mobs. The smallest American error is given banner headlines, but is, in contrast, excoriated. It is suicidal to reinforce this double standard.

One needs to point out that the pan-Arab media said nothing when the Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad destroyed Hama and killed more than 10,000 of his own innocent people, or when Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Iraqis and created 300,000 anonymous graves.

Nothing negative was said by the pan-Arab media when Americans were burned, mutilated and dragged through the streets of Fallujah, or when two Palestinian gunmen ambushed a pregnant woman last Sunday in her station-wagon and at point-blank range methodically killed her four children ages two to 11, and then killed her.

It is worth remembering that Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, wrote an article admitting that his network had deliberately covered up and ignored Saddam's atrocities to retain access to Baghdad--a policy of caution that, of course, is not reflected in the network's current coverage of charges against America.

One American newspaper, with a half-page dedicated to the allegations of brutality in Iraq, referred to the Sunday killings of a mother and her five children as "violence marred the Sunday Likud election." No outrage, no shock, no horror, just another day of viciousness and brutality by our enemies.

We should firmly state our commitment to our values and denounce any American acts that violate those values. But while we publicly uncover and explicitly demonstrate our commitment to punish the guilty for their crimes under our rule of law, we should not play into any double standard under which America is allowed to be condemned by anyone who accepts Arab viciousness, terrorism, mutilation and barbarism as normal behavior.

With equal firmness we should demand of the Arab governments and the Arab media their condemnation of barbarism, brutality and terrorism in their own communities.

Finally, we should angrily reject anyone who would smear the 200,000-plus courageous decent men and women who have risked--and are risking daily--their lives for a free Iraq, and for a safe America. Any effort by the anti-American left or the Arab media to generalize the acts of a few into an attack on America, or on America's armed forces, should be repudiated and condemned.

Mr. Gingrich, former speaker of the House, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.



Not guilty! Now, let's adjourn for the hangin' ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 4, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Hal Lindsey

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush told a joint session of the Congress – to thunderous applause: "We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

The president paused, drew a deep breath, and told the Congress, the country and the world, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

The cheers resounded from both sides of the aisle – even Teddy Kennedy lumbered to his feet. The fires were finally out at the Pentagon. The ruins of the World Trade Center still smoldered in New York. The country was numb with grief.

As we investigated who dared to kill more innocent Americans in a few hours than were lost on D-Day or at Pearl Harbor, some of the evidence seemed to point in the direction of Baghdad.

There were mysterious meetings between Mohammed Atta in Prague before 9-11 and between senior Iraqi and al-Qaida envoys. There was Hussein's connection to the Kurdish al-Qaida affiliate, Ansar al-Islam. There was the hindsight intelligence that seem to suggest a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein that developed following the first Gulf War.

Until early 2003, it would have been difficult for any civilized nation to argue Saddam's Iraq was not a terrorist regime. Saddam sent paymasters to the Palestinian Authority to dole out checks to the families of suicide bombers. He supplied cash and weapons to Palestinian terrorists.

Saddam's agents were sent to Kuwait to carry out a terrorist attack aimed at assassinating former President George Bush. Even such political luminaries as John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and Richard Cohen all used the word "terrorist" at one time or another to describe Saddam's regime.

Since the fall of Saddam, documents have been authenticated detailing high-level meetings between members of Saddam's regime and members of al-Qaida. Iraqi agents traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 to meet with Osama bin Laden. Osama's representatives were accommodated in Baghdad. One document even outlines a deal between Saddam's government and al-Qaida to provide training facilities.

On Jan. 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden. Peter Jennings announced that, "Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Those "intelligence sources" relied on by Peter Jennings were not Bush administration sources ... Bush was governor of Texas in January 1999.

When the Clinton administration finally got around to indicting Osama bin Laden for the 1998 Africa bombings, the indictment said, in part: "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

On Aug. 27, 1998 – 20 days after al-Qaida attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa – Babel (a very interesting name, biblically speaking), the government newspaper run by Saddam's son Uday Hussein, published an editorial proclaiming bin Laden "an Arab and Islamic hero."

A bit more than a year after Saddam's regime crumbled, the evidence of a link between Saddam's Hussein and al-Qaida is undisputed. So, under the Bush Doctrine, as enunciated in his speech and approved by Congress, and under previously established U.S. policy for regime change in Iraq, as declared by President Clinton in 1998, it defies evidence and honesty how half the nation can argue the war was not justified.

Yet Al Gore's recent speech supporting John Kerry made declarations so far off the wall that New York Post columnist John Podhoretz questioned whether Gore had gone clinically insane.

Even John Kerry distanced himself from Al Gore – but only to keep Gore from slobbering all over him. After the coast was clear, Kerry repeated the same charges, but managed to do so without his eyes bugging out and his face turning purple.

They charged that George Bush led America recklessly into an unjustified war and, worst of all, began laying plans for this reckless attack – in advance. Never mind that it was acknowledged in the past by all sides to be a proven terrorist state with clear ties to al-Qaida!

Now fully grasp the enormity of this deception being peddled here: When the intelligence upon which everyone relied for the past 12 years was discovered to be flawed, somehow, that became evidence that Bush "lied." For this charge to be true, we would have to establish that the president had sources of evidence more credible than what President Clinton and all the other Democratic luminaries had.

Whether or not WMD will be found eventually – which remains a distinct possibility – is rhetorical. But the evidence strongly supports doing whatever was necessary to remove Saddam and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for the al-Qaida terrorist network that we just drove out of Afghanistan.

The evidence clearly shows that Bush is not guilty as charged. But his hanging is to proceed right on schedule. In this coming election, the Democrats – backed by a new breed of liberals – want to win at any cost. It matters not what the truth is. The only thing that matters is to spin information so that it enables you to win. And with such allies as Hollywood and the standard media, the "spin doctors" can get lies repeated enough to take on the semblance of truth.

But how does all this affect the troops who are daily risking their lives? Somewhere in Iraq this morning, an American soldier will pick up this week's Newsweek and read these words from a column by Christopher Dickey: "American soldiers in Iraq have been put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. But like any G.I. Joe in World War II, they're making the best of a bad situation."

I think Dickey intended to compliment the troops. But what if your best friend died in your arms because he was "put in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons"?



President Bush addresses the nation
President's remarks on Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: May 24, 2004
10:38 p.m. Eastern

The following remarks were made by President Bush at the United States Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., on Monday evening, May 24, 2002.


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you and good evening. I'm honored to visit the Army War College. Generations of officers have come here to study the strategies and history of warfare. I've come here tonight to report to all Americans, and to the Iraqi people, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq, and the specific steps were taking to achieve our goals.

The actions of our enemies over the last few weeks have been brutal, calculating, and instructive. We've seen a car bombing take the life of a 61-year-old Iraqi named Izzedin Saleem, who was serving as President of the Governing Council. This crime shows our enemy's intention to prevent Iraqi self-government, even if that means killing a lifelong Iraqi patriot and a faithful Muslim. Mr. Saleem was assassinated by terrorists seeking the return of tyranny and the death of democracy.

We've also seen images of a young American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for all the rules of warfare, and all the bounds of civilized behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action of ours, and would not be appeased by any concession. We suspect that the man with the knife was an al Qaeda associate named Zarqawi. He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror. And we must understand that, as well. The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory, and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings, and more murders of the innocent around the world.

The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

Our work in Iraq has been hard. Our coalition has faced changing conditions of war, and that has required perseverance, sacrifice, and an ability to adapt. The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect: Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population. These elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have reorganized, rearmed, and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics. They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power for themselves. These groups and individuals have conflicting ambitions, but they share a goal: They hope to wear out the patience of Americans, our coalition, and Iraqis before the arrival of effective self-government, and before Iraqis have the capability to defend their freedom.

Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic. Yet our coalition is strong, our efforts are focused and unrelenting, and no power of the enemy will stop Iraq's progress. (Applause.)

Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear. Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death.

Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure.

Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all – to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done.

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens who will prepare the way for national elections. On June 30th, the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and will not be replaced. The occupation will end, and Iraqis will govern their own affairs. America's ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, will present his credentials to the new president of Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad will have the same purpose as any other American embassy, to assure good relations with a sovereign nation. America and other countries will continue to provide technical experts to help Iraq's ministries of government, but these ministries will report to Iraq's new prime minister.

The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.

In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala'din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.

All along, some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have met to discuss their country's future, they have endorsed representative government. And they are practicing representative government. Many of Iraq's cities and towns now have elected town councils or city governments - and beyond the violence, a civil society is emerging.

The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they're not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies – the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment – 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty. (Applause.)

In the city of Fallujah, there's been considerable violence by Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters, including the murder of four American contractors. American soldiers and Marines could have used overwhelming force. Our commanders, however, consulted with Iraq's Governing Council and local officials, and determined that massive strikes against the enemy would alienate the local population, and increase support for the insurgency. So we have pursued a different approach. We're making security a shared responsibility in Fallujah. Coalition commanders have worked with local leaders to create an all-Iraqi security force, which is now patrolling the city. Our soldiers and Marines will continue to disrupt enemy attacks on our supply routes, conduct joint patrols with Iraqis to destroy bomb factories and safe houses, and kill or capture any enemy.

We want Iraqi forces to gain experience and confidence in dealing with their country's enemies. We want the Iraqi people to know that we trust their growing capabilities, even as we help build them. At the same time, Fallujah must cease to be a sanctuary for the enemy, and those responsible for terrorism will be held to account.

In the cities of Najaf and Karbala and Kufa, most of the violence has been incited by a young, radical cleric who commands an illegal militia. These enemies have been hiding behind an innocent civilian population, storing arms and ammunition in mosques, and launching attacks from holy shrines. Our soldiers have treated religious sites with respect, while systematically dismantling the illegal militia. We're also seeing Iraqis, themselves, take more responsibility for restoring order. In recent weeks, Iraqi forces have ejected elements of this militia from the governor's office in Najaf. Yesterday, an elite Iraqi unit cleared out a weapons cache from a large mosque in Kufa. Respected Shia leaders have called on the militia to withdraw from these towns. Ordinary Iraqis have marched in protest against the militants.

As challenges arise in Fallujah, Najaf, and elsewhere, the tactics of our military will be flexible. Commanders on the ground will pay close attention to local conditions. And we will do all that is necessary – by measured force or overwhelming force – to achieve a stable Iraq.

Iraq's military, police, and border forces have begun to take on broader responsibilities. Eventually, they must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn. And we're helping them to prepare for this role. In some cases, the early performance of Iraqi forces fell short. Some refused orders to engage the enemy. We've learned from these failures, and we've taken steps to correct them. Successful fighting units need a sense of cohesion, so we've lengthened and intensified their training. Successful units need to know they are fighting for the future of their own country, not for any occupying power, so we are ensuring that Iraqi forces serve under an Iraqi chain of command. Successful fighting units need the best possible leadership, so we improved the vetting and training of Iraqi officers and senior enlisted men.

At my direction, and with the support of Iraqi authorities, we are accelerating our program to help train Iraqis to defend their country. A new team of senior military officers is now assessing every unit in Iraq's security forces. I've asked this team to oversee the training of a force of 260,000 Iraqi soldiers, police, and other security personnel. Five Iraqi army battalions are in the field now, with another eight battalions to join them by July the 1st. The eventual goal is an Iraqi army of 35,000 soldiers in 27 battalions, fully prepared to defend their country.

After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help.

The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life. Our coalition has already helped Iraqis to rebuild schools and refurbish hospitals and health clinics, repair bridges, upgrade the electrical grid, and modernize the communications system. And now a growing private economy is taking shape. A new currency has been introduced. Iraq's Governing Council approved a new law that opens the country to foreign investment for the first time in decades. Iraq has liberalized its trade policy, and today an Iraqi observer attends meetings of the World Trade Organization. Iraqi oil production has reached more than two million barrels per day, bringing revenues of nearly $6 billion so far this year, which is being used to help the people of Iraq. And thanks in part to our efforts – to the efforts of former Secretary of State James Baker, many of Iraq's largest creditors have pledged to forgive or substantially reduce Iraqi debt incurred by the former regime.

We're making progress. Yet there still is much work to do. Over the decades of Saddam's rule, Iraq's infrastructure was allowed to crumble, while money was diverted to palaces, and to wars, and to weapons programs. We're urging other nations to contribute to Iraqi reconstruction – and 37 countries and the IMF and the World Bank have so far pledged $13.5 billion in aid. America has dedicated more than $20 billion to reconstruction and development projects in Iraq. To ensure our money is spent wisely and effectively, our new embassy in Iraq will have regional offices in several key cities. These offices will work closely with Iraqis at all levels of government to help make sure projects are completed on time and on budget.

A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning. (Applause.)

The fourth step in our plan is to enlist additional international support for Iraq's transition. At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations – to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction. Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government. I've directed Secretary Powell to work with fellow members of the Council to endorse the timetable the Iraqis have adopted, to express international support for Iraq's interim government, to reaffirm the world's security commitment to the Iraqi people, and to encourage other U.N. members to join in the effort. Despite past disagreements, most nations have indicated strong support for the success of a free Iraq. And I'm confident they will share in the responsibility of assuring that success.

Next month, at the NATO summit in Istanbul, I will thank our 15 NATO allies who together have more than 17,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Great Britain and Poland are each leading a multinational division that is securing important parts of the country. And NATO, itself, is giving helpful intelligence, communications, and logistical support to the Polish-led division. At the summit, we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy.

The fifth and most important step is free, national elections, to be held no later than next January. A United Nations team, headed by Carina Perelli, is now in Iraq, helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election. In that election, the Iraqi people will choose a transitional national assembly, the first freely-elected, truly representative national governing body in Iraq's history. This assembly will serve as Iraq's legislature, and it will choose a transitional government with executive powers. The transitional national assembly will also draft a new constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for the fall of 2005. Under this new constitution, Iraq will elect a permanent government by the end of next year.

In this time of war and liberation and rebuilding, American soldiers and civilians on the ground have come to know and respect the citizens of Iraq. They're a proud people who hold strong and diverse opinions. Yet Iraqis are united in a broad and deep conviction: They're determined never again to live at the mercy of a dictator. And they believe that a national election will put that dark time behind them. A representative government that protects basic rights, elected by Iraqis, is the best defense against the return of tyranny – and that election is coming. (Applause.)

Completing the five steps to Iraqi elected self-government will not be easy. There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty, and after the transfer of sovereignty. The terrorists and Saddam loyalists would rather see many Iraqis die than have any live in freedom. But terrorists will not determine the future of Iraq. (Applause.)

That nation is moving every week toward free elections and a permanent place among free nations. Like every nation that has made the journey to democracy, Iraqis will raise up a government that reflects their own culture and values. I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security, not to stay as an occupying power. I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American. Iraqis will write their own history, and find their own way. As they do, Iraqis can be certain, a free Iraq will always have a friend in the United States of America. (Applause.)

In the last 32 months, history has placed great demands on our country, and events have come quickly. Americans have seen the flames of September the 11th, followed battles in the mountains of Afghanistan, and learned new terms like "orange alert" and "ricin" and "dirty bomb." We've seen killers at work on trains in Madrid, in a bank in Istanbul, at a synagogue in Tunis, and at a nightclub in Bali. And now the families of our soldiers and civilian workers pray for their sons and daughters in Mosul and Karbala and Baghdad.

We did not seek this war on terror, but this is the world as we find it. We must keep our focus. We must do our duty. History is moving, and it will tend toward hope, or tend toward tragedy. Our terrorist enemies have a vision that guides and explains all their varied acts of murder. They seek to impose Taliban-like rule, country by country, across the greater Middle East. They seek the total control of every person, and mind, and soul, a harsh society in which women are voiceless and brutalized. They seek bases of operation to train more killers and export more violence. They commit dramatic acts of murder to shock, frighten and demoralize civilized nations, hoping we will retreat from the world and give them free rein. They seek weapons of mass destruction, to impose their will through blackmail and catastrophic attacks. None of this is the expression of a religion. It is a totalitarian political ideology, pursued with consuming zeal, and without conscience.

Our actions, too, are guided by a vision. We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East, as it has advanced and changed lives in Asia, and Latin America, and Eastern Europe, and Africa. We believe it is a tragedy of history that in the Middle East – which gave the world great gifts of law and science and faith – so many have been held back by lawless tyranny and fanaticism. We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away. America and all the world will be safer when hope has returned to the Middle East.

These two visions – one of tyranny and murder, the other of liberty and life – clashed in Afghanistan. And thanks to brave U.S. and coalition forces and to Afghan patriots, the nightmare of the Taliban is over, and that nation is coming to life again. These two visions have now met in Iraq, and are contending for the future of that country. The failure of freedom would only mark the beginning of peril and violence. But, my fellow Americans, we will not fail. We will persevere, and defeat this enemy, and hold this hard-won ground for the realm of liberty.

May God bless our country.



Courage Under Fire

Whether you support military action against Iraq or not, I believe the vehement dissent that’s been leveled against our President on this issue is more than just unpatriotic—-it may well border on treason. No one is debating that war should be waged as a last resort, or that people of good conscience will disagree on the means of resolving the crisis in Iraq. Indeed, public debate on an issue as important as this should be expected from any free society. But when it comes to matters of trust and national security, it boggles the mind that anyone would side with the tyrannical regime in Baghdad over a United States President.

Even the likes of Nelson Mandela have hurled vile accusations of “blood for oil” and shrill commentary on President Bush’s supposed willingness to sacrifice the lives of American enlisted personnel and world peace for cheap oil. In response, former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary and UN Arms-Control Director Kenneth Adelman, adroitly countered instead, “it’s Saddam who’s been on a clear path of oil for blood.” Via UN sanctions, Hussein has apparently been willing to forego as much as $200 billion in lost oil revenue, in order to thwart inspections and conceal his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Apparently it’s his WMD arsenal that Saddam values most. And if the U.S. wanted cheaper oil, we could have simply joined the French government in circumnavigating UN sanctions on procurement of Iraqi crude. Other than spurious arguments over energy or politics, is there a legitimate reason to stand down?

Is President Bush really engaging in a “rush to war,” as his detractors would have us believe? Hasn’t it been over eleven years since Saddam Hussein, who in order to retain his hold on power, agreed to disarm and demilitarize after the 1991 Gulf War? Even with Iraq having violated and obstructed enforcement of over fifteen UN resolutions since then, hasn’t the President first sought and received the approval of Congress and the UN Security Council to use “all means necessary” for enforcement? Given the glaring omissions in Iraq’s report to the UN, on the disposition of weapon programs already documented, does anyone really believe more time for inspections will uncover what Iraq is determined to conceal? Does anyone doubt that Saddam’s WMD program build-up serves any purpose other than to carryout his malevolent intent?

Will military action against Iraq really qualify as being preemptive? A better question would be, “should we wait until Iraq can engage in nuclear blackmail (like North Korea) before we take action?” While this administration has articulated a proactive strategy against terrorism, this action remains tied to the ’91 conflict. Since then, cessation of hostilities has been dependent upon Iraq’s disarmament. Pressure and sanctions have never been lifted, because Iraq has never complied with UN resolutions. Instead of disarming, Hussein’s regime continues to conceal missile programs, as well as huge quantities of biological and chemical nerve agents. Surely, Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to their neighbors and the free world. As President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address, “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

So why is it that many of our former allies do not support this action? Simply put, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For obvious reasons, associated with the toll that war exacts in death, destruction, and ongoing instability, the world community would understandably rather exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to force of arms. Considering the U.S. posture though, it should be equally obvious, that based on Hussein’s previous behavior and present course of action—that his WMD program presents an even greater catastrophic threat. Difficult choices aside, it’s the illicit energy pacts of unscrupulous allies and the cling to power from totalitarian regimes, which also prevents forthright action against Iraq. Frankly, if the UN is unwilling to authorize action against the Iraqi regime—that started 2 regional wars, that attempted genocide against its Kurdish population, and that stands in “material breach” of every UN resolution—then we owe Serbia an apology for interfering with their war in the Balkans.

I pray that President Bush will continue to show his courage under fire, during this latest defense of freedom over tyranny. When our President refuses to leave tough decisions to future administrations, he demonstrates the substance of true leadership. This principled man continues to stand in the gap, where others fear to tread. According to the latest polling data, over 80% of the American people side with our Commander-in-Chief. Although America’s support has slipped with some Europeans (within the Axis of Envy), and many Islamic countries, it probably has more to do with the immoral image we portray in the media, than with our foreign policy.

All things considered, the vitriolic stream of rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party’s leadership and the Hollywood elite is disingenuous, when their real intention is to discredit a President they claim was “selected, rather than elected.” Ideological sentiments aside, it’s hard to tell if they’re more interested in just maligning the character of an honorable leader, or deliberately aiding and abetting America’s enemies.

Roy Tanner