Text 1776, 309 rader
Skriven 2005-11-21 23:33:12 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0511212) for Mon, 2005 Nov 21
====================================================
===========================================================================
Vice President's Remarks on the War on Terror
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
November 21, 2005

Vice President's Remarks on the War on Terror
American Enterprise Institute
Washington, D.C.



11:01 A.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good morning, and thank you all very much. And thank
you, Chris. It's great to be back at AEI. Both Lynne and I have a long
history with the American Enterprise Institute, and we value the
association, and even more, we value the friendships that have come from
our time here. And I want to thank all of you for coming this morning and
for your welcome.

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror
and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on
some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress
about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under
the headline, "Cheney says war critics 'dishonest,' 'reprehensible.'"

One thing I've learned in the last five years is that when you're Vice
President, you're lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do
have a quarrel with that headline, and it's important to make this point at
the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or
any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of
democracy, and none of us should want it any other way. For my part, I've
spent a career in public service, run for office eight times -- six
statewide offices and twice nationally. I served in the House of
Representatives for better than a decade, most of that time as a member of
the leadership of the minority party. To me, energetic debate on issues
facing our country is more than just a sign of a healthy political system
-- it's also something I enjoy. It's one of the reasons I've stayed in this
business. And I believe the feeling is probably the same for most of us in
public life.

For those of us who don't mind debating, there's plenty to keep us busy
these days, and it's not likely to change any time soon. On the question of
national security, feelings run especially strong, and there are deeply
held differences of opinion on how best to protect the United States and
our friends against the dangers of our time. Recently my friend and former
colleague Jack Murtha called for a complete withdrawal of American forces
now serving in Iraq, with a drawdown to begin at once. I disagree with Jack
and believe his proposal would not serve the best interests of this nation.
But he's a good man, a Marine, a patriot -- and he's taking a clear stand
in an entirely legitimate discussion.

Nor is there any problem with debating whether the United States and our
allies should have liberated Iraq in the first place. Here, as well, the
differing views are very passionately and forcefully stated. But nobody is
saying we should not be having this discussion, or that you cannot
reexamine a decision made by the President and the Congress some years ago.
To the contrary, I believe it is critical that we continue to remind
ourselves why this nation took action, and why Iraq is the central front in
the war on terror, and why we have a duty to persevere.

What is not legitimate -- and what I will again say is dishonest and
reprehensible -- is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the
President of the United States or any member of his administration
purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have come from politicians who
actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of force against Saddam
Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence
materials. They are known to have a high opinion of their own analytical
capabilities. (Laughter.) And they were free to reach their own judgments
based upon the evidence. They concluded, as the President and I had
concluded, and as the previous administration had concluded, that Saddam
Hussein was a threat. Available intelligence indicated that the dictator of
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and this judgment was shared by the
intelligence agencies of many other nations, according to the bipartisan
Silberman-Robb Commission. All of us understood, as well, that for more
than a decade, the U.N. Security Council had demanded that Saddam Hussein
make a full accounting of his weapons programs. The burden of proof was
entirely on the dictator of Iraq -- not on the U.N. or the United States or
anyone else. And he repeatedly refused to comply throughout the course of
the decade.

Permit me to burden you with a bit more history: In August of 1998, the
U.S. Congress passed a resolution urging President Clinton take
"appropriate action" to compel Saddam to come into compliance with his
obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator voted no. Two
months later, in October of '98 -- again, without a single dissenting vote
in the United States Senate -- the Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act.
It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting efforts to remove
Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an Iraqi democracy in its
place. And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation law, President
Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities that
he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction
programs.

By the time Congress voted to authorize force in late 2002, there was
broad-based, bipartisan agreement that the time had come to enforce the
legitimate demands of the international community. And our thinking was
informed by what had happened to our country on the morning of September
11th, 2001. As the prime target of terrorists who have shown an ability to
hit America and who wish to do so in spectacular fashion, we have a
responsibility to do everything we can to keep terrible weapons out of the
hands of these enemies. And we must hold to account regimes that could
supply those weapons to terrorists in defiance of the civilized world. As
the President has said, "Terrorists and terror states do not reveal ...
threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such
enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is
suicide."

In a post-9/11 world, the President and Congress of the United States
declined to trust the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of
mass destruction programs, who actually used weapons of mass destruction
against innocent civilians in his own country, who tried to assassinate a
former President of the United States, who was routinely shooting at allied
pilots trying to enforce no fly zones, who had excluded weapons inspectors,
who had defied the demands of the international community, whose regime had
been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed
mass murder. Those are the facts.

Although our coalition has not found WMD stockpiles in Iraq, I repeat that
we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did. We operated on the
best available intelligence, gathered over a period of years from within a
totalitarian society ruled by fear and secret police. We also had the
experience of the first Gulf War -- when the intelligence community had
seriously underestimated the extent and progress Saddam had made toward
developing nuclear weapons.

Finally, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam Hussein wanted to preserve
the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when
sanctions were lifted. And we now know that the sanctions regime had lost
its effectiveness and been totally undermined by Saddam Hussein's
successful effort to corrupt the Oil for Food program.

The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight, but any
suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by
the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best:
"It is a lie to say that the President lied to the American people."

American soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq go out every day into some of
the most dangerous and unpredictable conditions. Meanwhile, back in the
United States, a few politicians are suggesting these brave Americans were
sent into battle for a deliberate falsehood. This is revisionism of the
most corrupt and shameless variety. It has no place anywhere in American
politics, much less in the United States Senate.

One might also argue that untruthful charges against the Commander-in-Chief
have an insidious effect on the war effort itself. I'm unwilling to say
that, only because I know the character of the United States Armed Forces
-- men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and many other fronts. They haven't wavered in the slightest, and their
conduct should make all Americans proud. They are absolutely relentless in
their duties, and they are carrying out their missions with all the skill
and the honor we expect of them. I think of the ones who put on heavy gear
and work 12-hour shifts in the desert heat. Every day they are striking the
enemy -- conducting raids, training up Iraqi forces, countering attacks,
seizing weapons, and capturing killers. Americans appreciate our fellow
citizens who go out on long deployments and endure the hardship of
separation from home and family. We care about those who have returned with
injuries, and who face the long, hard road of recovery. And our nation
grieves for the men and women whose lives have ended in freedom's cause.

The people who serve in uniform, and their families, can be certain: that
their cause is right and just and necessary, and we will stand behind them
with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

The men and women on duty in this war are serving the highest ideals of
this nation -- our belief in freedom and justice, equality, and the dignity
of the individual. And they are serving the vital security interests of the
United States. There is no denying that the work is difficult and there is
much yet to do. Yet we can harbor no illusions about the nature of this
enemy, or the ambitions it seeks to achieve.

In the war on terror we face a loose network of committed fanatics, found
in many countries, operating under different commanders. Yet the branches
of this network share the same basic ideology and the same dark vision for
the world. The terrorists want to end American and Western influence in the
Middle East. Their goal in that region is to gain control of the country,
so they have a base from which to launch attacks and to wage war against
governments that do not meet their demands. For a time, the terrorists had
such a base in Afghanistan, under the backward and violent rule of the
Taliban. And the terrorists hope to overturn Iraq's democratic government
and return that country to the rule of tyrants. The terrorists believe that
by controlling an entire country, they will be able to target and overthrow
other governments in the region, and to establish a radical Islamic empire
that encompasses a region from Spain, across North Africa, through the
Middle East and South Asia, all the way to Indonesia. They have made clear,
as well, their ultimate ambitions: to arm themselves with weapons of mass
destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate all Western countries, and to
cause mass death in the United States.

Some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply
stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not
in Iraq on September 11th, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway. The
reality is that terrorists were at war with our country long before the
liberation of Iraq, and long before the attacks of 9/11. And for many
years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in the belief
that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy. In Beirut
in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service men. Thereafter, the United
States withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu in 1993, terrorists killed 19
American soldiers. Thereafter, the U.S. withdrew its forces from Somalia.
Over time, the terrorists concluded that they could strike America without
paying a price, because they did, repeatedly: the bombing at the World
Trade Center in 1993, the murders at the Saudi National Guard Training
Center in Riyadh in 1995, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the simultaneous
bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and, of
course, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

Believing they could strike us with impunity and that they could change
U.S. policy, they attacked us on 9/11 here in the homeland, killing 3,000
people. Now they are making a stand in Iraq -- testing our resolve, trying
to intimidate the United States into abandoning our friends and permitting
the overthrow of this new Middle Eastern democracy. Recently we obtained a
message from the number-two man in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri, that he sent to
his chief deputy in Iraq, the terrorist Zarqawi. The letter makes clear
that Iraq is part of a larger plan of imposing Islamic radicalism across
the broader Middle East -- making Iraq a terrorist haven and a staging
ground for attacks against other nations. Zawahiri also expresses the view
that America can be made to run again.

In light of the commitments our country has made, and given the stated
intentions of the enemy, those who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq
should answer a few simple questions: Would the United States and other
free nations be better off, or worse off, with Zarqawi, bin Laden, and
Zawahiri in control of Iraq? Would we be safer, or less safe, with Iraq
ruled by men intent on the destruction of our country?

It is a dangerous illusion to suppose that another retreat by the civilized
world would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us
alone. In fact such a retreat would convince the terrorists that free
nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, abandon our
interests whenever we are confronted with murder and blackmail. A
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for the terrorists, an
invitation to further violence against free nations, and a terrible blow to
the future security of the United States of America.

So much self-defeating pessimism about Iraq comes at a time of real
progress in that country. Coalition forces are making decisive strikes
against terrorist strongholds, and more and more they are doing so with
Iraqi forces at their side. There are more than 90 Iraqi army battalions
fighting the terrorists, along with our forces. On the political side,
every benchmark has been met successfully -- starting with the turnover of
sovereignty more than a year ago, the national elections last January, the
drafting of the constitution and its ratification by voters just last
month, and, a few weeks from now, the election of a new government under
that new constitution.

The political leaders of Iraq are steady and courageous, and the citizens,
police and soldiers of that country have proudly stepped forward as active
participants and guardians in a new democracy -- running for office,
speaking out, voting and sacrificing for their country. Iraqi citizens are
doing all of this despite threats from terrorists who offer no political
agenda for Iraq's future, and wage a campaign of mass slaughter against the
Iraqi people themselves -- the vast majority of whom are fellow Arabs and
fellow Muslims.

Day after day, Iraqis are proving their determination to live in freedom,
to chart their own destiny, and to defend their own country. And they can
know that the United States will keep our commitment to them. We will
continue the work of reconstruction. Our forces will keep going after the
terrorists, and continue training the Iraqi military, so that Iraqis can
eventually take the lead in their country's security and our men and women
can come home. We will succeed in this mission, and when it is concluded,
we will be a safer nation.

Wartime conditions are, in every case, a test of military skill and
national resolve. But this is especially true in the war on terror. Four
years ago, President Bush told Congress and the country that the path ahead
would be difficult, that we were heading into a long struggle, unlike any
we have known. All this has come to pass. We have faced, and are facing
today, enemies who hate us, hate our country, and hate the liberties for
which we stand. They dwell in the shadows, wear no uniform, have no regard
for the laws of warfare, and feel unconstrained by any standard of
morality. We've never had a fight like this, and the Americans who go into
the fight are among the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. All
who have labored in this cause can be proud of their service for the rest
of their lives.

The terrorists lack any capacity to inspire the hearts of good men and
women. And their only chance for victory is for us to walk away from the
fight. They have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength, and they
believe that America will lose our nerve and let down our guard. But this
nation has made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality,
and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists.

None of us can know every turn that lies ahead for America in the fight
against terror. And because we are Americans, we are going to keep
discussing the conduct and the progress of this war and having debates
about strategy. Yet the direction of events is plain to see, and this
period of struggle and testing should also be seen as a time of promise.
The United States of America is a good country, a decent country, and we
are making the world a better place by defending the innocent, confronting
the violent, and bringing freedom to the oppressed. We understand the
continuing dangers to civilization, and we have the resources, the
strength, and the moral courage to overcome those dangers and lay the
foundations for a better world.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

END 11:20 A.M. EST

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051121-2.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)