| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 7:01 pm Post subject: Warmongering Bush Speech from Last Night |
| Below I included the text of President Bush's speech from last night at the American Enterprise Institute which is an ardent pro-Israel (Zionist) think tank in Washington, D.C. that Richard Perle is associated with (notice how President Bush mentions that he has 20 "minds" from the American Enterprise Institute who are working with his current regime, so no wonder he has such a pro-Israel bias):
Zionist Think Tanks Pushing for US Invasion of Iraq:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html
Washington's Zionist hawks to reshape Mid-East for Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/10/25/washington-s-zionist-hawks-to-reshape-mid-east-for-israel.php
President Bush mentioned (in the speech) that he would like a Palestinian state created by 2005 in order to (apparently) placate the Arab countries in the Gulf region (which are concerned by the Palestinian situation in occupied Palestine) for continued use of their respective bases for US military operations (however, in reality, President Bush has Zionist extremists like Elliott Abrams and Doug Feith of JINSA who helped to sabotage the Oslo Peace Accords between the Israelis and Palestinians because they do not believe in a Palestinian state):
Return of Zionist Extremist Elliott Abrams (there is also an article about "transfer/ethnic cleansing the Palestinians off their ancestral homeland and into neighboring Jordan):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/04/return-of-zionist-extremist-elliott-abrams.php
War on Iraq: Conceived in Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/10/the-war-on-iraq-conceived-in-israel.php
Zionist Richard Perle : 'Inspections Or Not, We'll Attack Iraq':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/11/24/zionist-richard-perle-inspections-or-not-we-ll-attack-iraq.php
JINSA Zionist Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Long before Bush Presidency:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/31/bush-planned-iraq-regime-change-before-becoming-president.php
Israeli Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth with 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/02/16/israeli-spy-rumors-fly-on-gusts-of-truth-with-9-11.php
Text of Bush's Speech Wednesday Night
Wed Feb 26,10:19 PM ET
By The Associated Press Text of President Bush (news - web sites)'s remarks Wednesday night to the American Enterprise Institute, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc.:
Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm proud to be with the scholars and the friends and the supporters of the American Enterprise Institute. I want to thank you for overlooking my dress code violation. They were about to stop me at the door, but Irving Kristol said, 'I know this guy, let him in.' Chris, thank you for your very kind introduction and thank you for your leadership. I see many distinguished guests here tonight, members of my Cabinet, members of Congress, Justice (Antonin) Scalia, Justice (Clarence) Thomas and so many respected writers and policy experts. I'm always happy to see your senior fellow, Dr. Lynne Cheney. Lynne is a wise and thoughtful commentator on history and culture and a dear friend to Laura and me. I'm also familiar with the good work of her husband. You may remember him, the former director of my vice presidential search committee. Thank God Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said yes. Thanks for fitting me into the program tonight. I know I'm not the featured speaker; I'm just a warm-up act for Allan Meltzer. But I want to congratulate Dr. Meltzer for a lifetime of achievements and for tonight's well-deserved honor. Congratulations. At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work and some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds. I want to thank them for their service, but I also want to remind people that for 60 years AEI scholars have made vital contributions to our country and to our government and we are grateful for those contributions. We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others, the rest will be written by us. On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century. We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: We will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men. Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida. Across the world we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning and we're showing them the definition of American justice. And we're opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country, and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations (news - web sites) and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East.
A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform this vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction, to a free and peaceful Iraq. The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war and misery and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein, but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy, yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving in to place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry. We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites operating under the Oil for Food program are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF (news - web sites) to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people. We'll also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners, the Iraqi people. The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own. We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies. We left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home. There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. The nation of Iraq with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life, and there are hopeful signs of the desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the freedom gap so their people can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater political participation, economic openness and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps to political reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life. Human cultures can be vastly different, yet the human heart desires the same good things everywhere on Earth. In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. But without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders, true leaders who strive for peace, true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror. For its part, the new government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end. And the Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and state clearly they will live in peace with Israel. The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government and my personal commitment to implement the road map and to reach that goal. Old patterns of conflict in the Middle East can be broken if all concerned will let go of bitterness and hatred and violence and get on with the serious work of economic development and political reform and reconciliation. America will seize every opportunity in pursuit of peace. And the end of the present regime in Iraq would create such an opportunity. In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council so much that we want its words to have meaning. The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force." Another resolution is now before the Security Council. If the council responds to Iraq's defiance with more excuses and delays, if all its authority proves to be empty, the United Nations will be severely weakened as a source of stability and order. If the members rise to this moment, then the council will fulfill its founding purpose. I've listened carefully as people and leaders around the world have made known their desire for peace. All of us want peace. The threat to peace does not come from those who seek to enforce the just demands of the civilized world. The threat to peace comes from those who flout those demands. If we have to act, we will act to restrain the violent and defend the cause of peace, and by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that, in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected. Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we'll meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime. The dangers are real, as our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines fully understand. Yet no military has ever been better prepared to meet these challenges. Members of our armed forces also understand why they may be called to fight. They know that retreat before a dictator guarantees even greater sacrifices in the future. They know that America's cause is right and just: The liberty for an oppressed people and security for the American people. And I know something about these men and women who wear a uniform. They will complete every mission they are given with skill and honor and courage. Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in the country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East after so many generations of strife. Yet the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us. And Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times and we will meet the tests of our time. We go forward with confidence because we trust in the power of human freedom to change lives and nations. By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty. Free people will set the course of history and free people will keep the peace of the world. Thank you all very much. END | |  | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2003 8:30 pm Post subject: JINSA Zionist Jew Richard Perle on Iraq 'Regime Change' |
| Richard Perle about "regime change" in Iraq [Worth reading]
iraqicommunity-Message 1665.,Tue Feb 25, 2003.
Worth reading
----------------------------------------
Interview: 'Even if Saddam worked for us it is time for us to throw
him out'
London |By Amir Taheri | 23-02-2003
His political enemies have labelled him "The Prince of Darkness"
while his friends claim that he is one of the "best strategic
brains" in Washington. All agree that Richard Perle, who chairs the
all-powerful Defence Policy Board, is one of the key hands in
shaping President George W. Bush's global strategy.
One of the architects of the policy of "regime change" in Iraq,
Perle plays a crucial behind-the-scenes role in all diplomatic,
political and military aspects of what looks like a deepening crisis.
In an exclusive interview conducted during a recent visit to London,
Perle responded to our questions.
Excerpts:
Question: Some people in the Arab world believe that Saddam Hussain
works for you.
Answer: Why is that?
"It's a long story. But the main theme is that Saddam, by
threatening and sometimes actually invading Iraq's neighbours,
forced many countries in the region to come under the U.S. umbrella
and even invite American military presence. He also waged war
against the revolution in Iran for eight years, helping you contain
that particular enemy at no cost to yourself. The result of all that
is there is now a quarter of a million American troops where there
was none just three decades ago. The U.S. has some military presence
in all but five of the Arab states. And now, by making an unequal
war inevitable, he is just trying to present Iraq to you on a golden
plate..."
A:Interesting analysis. But I can tell you one thing: even if Saddam
worked for us it is time for us to chuck him out. We are not
interested in maintaining troops outside our own territory just for
the fun of it. The United States was not designed or destined to
become an imperial power. You will not find anywhere in the world
where we intervened militarily and set up a colonial empire.
Our problem with Saddam Hussain is twofold. First, he is clearly
determined to build up his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
which he could use against our allies in the region and, later, even
against Europe and the United States. The simple truth is that we
cannot trust him.
Therefore, we cannot turn our face away and let him to do whatever
he likes in violation of the ceasefire accords of 1991 and 18
Security Council resolutions. The second reason for our position is
that we believe the Iraqi people deserve a better government.
Q:Some Arabs believe you want Iraq's oil…
A:The answer to that question will be given by what we shall all see
very soon. Iraqi oil belongs to the people of Iraq and whoever is
prepared to buy it at world prices. Even now the American market
absorbs most of Iraq's oil.
Q:Some Arabs see you as an enemy…
A:They are wrong. Saddam Hussain is not the symbol of Arab dreams,
hopes and aspirations. No one has harmed Arab interests as much as
he has in the past few decades. All that I want is for Arabs to be
able to elect their own governments, hold them accountable.
All I want is for the Arabs to have a robust open market economy so
that they can have a share in the fantastic prosperity created by
the new global economy. Why is it that the Arab countries are
absolutely the only ones whose real income per head has fallen in
the past two decades?
A friend is not one who flatters you and congratulates you for your
weaknesses. A friend is he who criticises you. I want the Arabs to
ask themselves why are they weak and confused? The answer is:
because they are not free. Because they have suffered from leaders
like Saddam Hussain.
Q:Are the Arabs ready for the kind of Western-style system you
preach?
A:I think they are. At least they must be given a chance. When they
had a chance, several Arab countries were slowly building democracy –
among them Iraq and Egypt. And today several Arab states are taking
risks with reform and change. The Arabs have a great culture and
civilisation behind them. So, why should they be shut out of
contemporary civilisation?
Q:So, you think that post-Saddam Iraq will be a model for all Arabs?
A:I don't believe in models. You can never generalise in these
things. Each country has its own traditions, its own dynamism for
reform. It is not for us to tell anyone how to do things. All that
we are saying is that people should not be imprisoned or killed
because of their opinions, that governments should be answerable to
people, and that the national economy is not a thieves' bazaar for
the rulers.
Q:One of your former advisors Laurent Murawiec says that Saudi
Arabia should be regarded as "Enemy Number One" of the United States
and even invaded and carved into five mini-states. Do you agree?
A:No, I don't. Saudi Arabia is a valuable ally. There are aspects of
Saudi policy with which we disagree just as there are aspects of our
policy that the Saudis do not like. So we tell them what we think
and they tell us what they think.
I must also tell you that Saudi Arabia is not a monolith. Not all
Saudis think and behave alike. There is a wide-range of opinion on
all key issues in the kingdom where we have solid friends. The
reform plan proposed by Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdelaziz contains
some interesting suggestions. It could provide the Arabs with a
roadmap for collective change.
Q:There are frequent reports about plans to persuade Saddam Hussain
to step down and go into exile, thus preventing a war.
A:I know. But we will not accept fudge. We will not accept a half
solution under which the Iraqis will end up with a light version of
Saddam. What we are talking about is regime change, not just a
change of personnel.
Saddam is both the cause and the effect of an evil system that has
brought so much suffering to the people of Iraq. That system must
go. If Saddam's departure into exile is the first step to the kind
of change I am talking about, very well. If not, no thanks.
Q:From what you say it seems to me that war has become inevitable…
A:War was never ruled out as an option. But nothing is inevitable
until it has happened. Obviously, the final word must come from
President George W. Bush.
Q:Could it come soon? And how long do you think the war would take?
A:My hunch is that it will come soon. My understanding is that we
can wrap the whole thing in 30 days.
Q:So there is no chance that in November 2004 when there will be
another U.S. presidential election we shall still have Saddam
Hussain in power in Baghdad pointing to the scalp of a second
President Bush on his wall?
A:No chance. Guaranteed.
Q: Will the U.S. go to war even without a second UN resolution?
A:Anyone with a smallest doe of fairness would know that, legally
speaking, we do not need a second resolution. We didn't even need
1441. The Security Council gave Iraq 60 days to disarm back in 1991.
One thing is certain: we will not allow manoeuvrings over a second
resolution to be used as a tactic to buy Saddam more time.
Q:What if France vetoes a second resolution that authorises the use
of force?
A:That won't happen. The last time France vetoed an American
resolution was in 1956. At that time the U.S. wanted French, British
and Israeli forces to immediately evacuate the Sinai that they had
captured from Egypt in the Suez War. The French veto had no real
effect. The U.S. succeeded in making sure that Egyptian territory
was evacuated.
Q:Does this mean the U.S. will ignore a French veto?
A:Certainly. If a veto can dictate our policy then France would be
regarded as the master of the world. In any case, there will be no
French veto. The French know that if they veto we shall ignore them.
They would also know that Saddam Hussain couldn't win. So, what
would be the sense of antagonising a victorious U.S. to please a
losing Saddam?
Q:I don't know. But I can tell you that President Jacques Chirac
seems determined to make life as hard as he can for you. He cannot
accept that the U.S. should have the power to go around changing
regimes it does not like…
A:I don't agree with your analysis. Just before the war starts
France will jump on our side. It has happened all the time, most
recently in Afghanistan. The French behaved in exactly the same way
last time when Saddam had invaded Kuwait.
Let me tell you something more important: the French attitude makes
war more likely. It gives Saddam false hope that things can be
dragged on and on until the next American presidential election.
Thus Saddam sees no reason why he should really show his weapons to
the inspectors.
That gives us the clear reason we need for attacking him. Thus,
Chirac's policy will, in the final analysis, lead to Saddam's
destruction.
Q:Isn't there a subtext to the French position, one linked to French
oil interests in Iraq?
A:The French company Total has signed a $40 billion oil deal with
the Iraqis. Paris is, therefore, anxious to preserve that. But many
Iraqis say the contract is unfair and one-sided. They want it to be
renegotiated in favour of Iraq. But that is not an issue for us. It
is the future Iraqi government that would decide what do with the
country's oil and other resources.
There is no reason why France, which has a long presence in Iraq,
should be excluded from normal and mutually beneficial deals. Let me
repeat that we are not in this for oil. We are in this for something
much more important than oil: our future security and the security
of our allies in the region.
Q:Is there enough Arab support for the American position?
A:More than enough. Not a single Arab state is making the slightest
move against our policy on this issue. And at least a dozen are
actively cooperating with us in whatever field we require.
Q:Could you tell us which ones?
A:No. I am not their spokesman. What interests me is that almost all
Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of
their own interests on this issue.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told us recently in Davos that the
U.S. had 12 allies in the coming war…
As soon as it becomes clear that we are going to war we shall have
plenty of allies. But even if we didn't have a single ally, we would
still do what needs to be done. One way or another, and sooner
rather than later, Saddam Hussain must go, that's the message.
Q:Who will be your next target? Iran, Syria, Libya?
Change is needed in all those three countries, and a few others
besides. But the Iraqi case is unique. I think Iran can be changed
by the action of the Iranian people. We shall provide whatever
support they need to ensure the success of the reform movement.
I believe that Syria, too, can organise change from within. As for
Libya, it is a weird case. For the time being it is out of world
reality. But the colonel knows that we have our eyes on him.
Q:In Davos, Colin Powell told us that there would be a Palestinian
state by 2005...
A:2005 is a long way off. Once the Iraqi situation is settled we can
move faster. The president's "two-states" vision is already clear.
We also have a road map. We are convinced that, without the
settlement of the Palestinian issue, new political architecture of
the Middle East would not be possible.
Q:Can the U.S. handle the Iraqi conflict and the North Koran crisis
at the same time?
A:Certainly. For the past 20 years we have worked on a strategy that
enables us to fight at least two major wars simultaneously. We are
not going to let North Korea off the hook simply because we are
working to get rid of Saddam.
Q:Do you plan to impose a military occupation of Iraq?
A:No. Our first task is to topple the dictatorship and destroy its
weapons. We shall then have the task of ensuring security and law
and order for a brief period during which the new Iraqi government
establishes itself and rebuilds its police and armed forces.
The Iraqis will have the opportunity to have a new constitution,
hold elections and produce a government of their own choosing. Once
that government asks us to leave, we shall leave.
Q:So, all this talk about an American ruler for Iraq is out of
place? I have heard many names including Colin Powell and even
former Senator George Mitchell...
A:Mitchell? You must be kidding. No, Iraq does not need an American
ruler. We had to assume direct rule in Germany and Japan after the
Second World War because there were no alternative forces in those
countries at the time.
The majority of the Germans had supported Hitler and the majority of
the Japanese had endorsed the policies of their military rulers. In
Iraq, however, the majority is against Saddam Hussain. There are
Iraqis from all shades of opinion to come together and create a
pluralist system.
You can have two-dozen political parties covering the whole spectrum
in Iraq. There are also many competent, experienced, well-educated
and dedicated Iraqis to assume control of their country and rebuild
it. They won't need an American ruler. Iraq is to be a model of
democracy, not a model of American military rule.
Q:A word about Turkey and Iran. Do you have their support?
A:As much as needed. Turkey is an ally, and Iran knows what it must
do.
Q:Nevertheless, the Turks are making noises about the Treaty of
Lausanne that gives them the so-called "right of observance" in
northern Iraq, especially in the oil regions of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Iran, for its part, talks about the Erzerum Treaty that gives Tehran
some say in the affairs of the Shiite holy shrines in southern Iraq.
A:I don't know about all that. All I can say is that we shall not
allow anyone to threaten Iraq's independence, territorial integrity
and full sovereignty. Turkey has received assurances about the
Turkmen minority in northern Iraq.
It is also aware of the fact that it cannot create an empire in
northern Iraq. As for Iran, whatever the Shiites do about their
shrines is their private matter. The new Iraqi government will not
allow any foreign intervention.
Q:What is the timetable? Would there be a new Iraqi regime in time
for the Arab summit, perhaps in spring?
A:Why not? | | | | Guest-c651 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
