Text 4209, 382 rader
Skriven 2007-03-12 23:33:06 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070312) for Mon, 2007 Mar 12
===================================================

===========================================================================
Vice President's Remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
2007 Policy Conference
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Vice President March 12, 2007

Vice President's Remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
2007 Policy Conference Washington Convention Center Washington, D.C.



9:10 A.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Karl Rove finds out about this, he
won't let me out again. (Laughter.)

Thank you very much for that warm welcome and, David, let me thank you for
the introduction. And let me thank the AIPAC board of directors and the
members from all across America for the opportunity to be here today.

I have many friends in the hall and I especially want to acknowledge Sallai
Meridor, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. (Applause.) And, of course, Tzipi
Livni, Israel's foreign minister. (Applause.)

I also want to recognize the many students who have come from across the
country, even some I'm told from Wyoming. Welcome to Washington. It's great
to see you all here. (Applause.)

We're here today as citizens from different parts of the country, diverse
backgrounds, many professions and various political affiliations. Yet we
find unity and strength in the values of liberty and equality and our
belief in democracy and the rule of law and in our devotion to the security
of America's friend, the state of Israel. (Applause.)

As members of AIPAC, you play a vital role in making the strategic and
moral case for America's friendship with Israel. I commend AIPAC for the
fine work you do, not just at this annual event but every day of the year.
It's good to be in your company, and I bring warm regards from the
President of the United States, George W. Bush. (Applause.)

As most of you know, the President is traveling in Latin America this week,
solidifying our friendships in that region and promoting an agenda of
democracy, economic progress and security. He asked me to convey to this
gathering his great appreciation for your efforts, his strong support for
Israel, and his firm commitment to peace in the Holy Land, built on a
foundation of security, not surrender. (Applause.)

The President has been clear and forthright about his vision of two
democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. He
remains committed to the achievement of that vision, nor has he compromised
the basic principles he has stated from the very beginning: Peace requires
a Palestinian government that recognizes Israel's right to exist, accepts
the validity of past agreements and renounces violence and terrorism
totally and completely. (Applause.)

Progress in the cause of security and long-term peace never comes easily.
Yet the United States and Israel persevere in that cause. We understand, as
Ariel Sharon put it, the right and responsibility of every democracy, if it
wishes to survive, to protect itself and its values. Doing so requires
moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when
action is necessary, and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation,
ever. (Applause.)

These qualities are a credit to the American and the Israeli people. And
these qualities are tested every day as we wage the war on terror. Israelis
know this because rockets are shot at them and three Israeli soldiers are
now being held hostage, two by Hezbollah, one by Hamas, even as we meet
here today.

We are the prime targets of a terror movement that is global in nature and,
yes, global in its ambitions. The leaders of this movement speak openly and
specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East,
extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia, one
that would impose a narrow, radical vision of Islam that rejects tolerance,
suppresses dissent, brutalizes women and has one of its foremost objectives
the destruction of Israel. Their creed is extreme and backward looking, yet
their methods are modern and sophisticated. The terrorists use the Internet
to spread propaganda, to find new recruits, and they're employing every
other tool of communication and finance to carry out their plans.

It's odd to think of ideologues out of the Dark Ages having a modern media
strategy, but the fact is they do. They take videos of their attacks and
put them up on the Internet to get them broadcast on television. They send
messages and images by e-mail and tell their followers to spread the word.
They wage war by stealth and murder, disregarding the rules of warfare and
rejoicing in the death of the innocent.

And not even the instinct of self-preservation is a restraint. The
terrorists value death the same way you and I value life. Civilized, decent
societies will never fully understand the kind of mindset that drives men
to strap on bombs or fly airplanes into buildings, all for the purpose of
killing unsuspecting men, women and children who they have never met and
who have done them no wrong. But that is the very kind of blind, prideful
hatred we're up against.

And their aim, ultimately, is to acquire the means to match that hatred and
to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to impose their will by
unspeakable violence or blackmail.

An enemy that operates in the shadows and views the entire world as a
battlefield is not one we can fight with strategies used in other wars. An
enemy with fantasies of martyrdom is not going to sit down at a table for
negotiations. Nor can we fight to a standoff -- (applause). Nor can we
fight to a standoff, hoping that some form of containment or deterrence
will protect our people. The only option for our security and survival is
to go on the offensive, facing the threat directly, patiently and
systematically, until the enemy is destroyed. (Applause.)

The war on terror is more than a contest of arms and more than a test of
will, it is also a battle of ideas. We know now to a certainty that when
people across the Middle East are denied freedom, that is a direct
strategic concern of all free nations. By taking the side of moderates,
reformers and advocates for democracy, by providing an alternative to
hateful ideologies, we improve the chances for a lasting peace and we
advance our own security interests.

In the last two years, we have seen hopeful changes as men and women showed
their desire to live in freedom. And we have seen the enemy's fierce
reaction. In 2005, the people of Lebanon proclaimed the Cedar Revolution
and drove out their Syrian occupiers. (Applause.) That same year, the
people of Afghanistan elected a parliament. And in Iraq, citizens voted in
three national elections, turning out in the millions to defy killers and
car bombers and to elect a government that serves under the most
progressive constitution in the Arab world.

In 2006, freedom's enemies struck back with new tactics and greater fury.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah terrorists who are supported by Iran and Syria,
attacked Israel, killing Israelis and sending rockets into civilian areas
and have since worked to undermine Lebanon's democratically elected
government. Also in 2006, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan
waged a new offensive against Afghanistan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Sunni
and Shia extremists engaged in escalating sectarian struggle that continues
to this day.

Our duty is to face all of these challenges with resolve and we are doing
so. In Afghanistan, where I visited just a few weeks ago, American and NATO
forces are preparing a spring offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda
fighters. In Iraq, our goal remains a democratic nation that upholds the
rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and
is an ally in the war on terror. But for this to happen, the elected
government in Iraq needs the space and the time to work on reconciliation
goals, and it's hard to do that without basic security in Baghdad.

Our coalition is pursuing a new strategy that brings in reinforcements to
help Iraqi forces secure the capital so that nation can move forward and
the political process can turn toward reconciliation. A few weeks ago, the
new coalition commander, General Dave Petraeus, arrived in the Iraq
theater. He sent a written message to his soldiers and, with your
forbearance, I'd like to quote from it at length.

"The enemies of Iraq," he said, "will shrink at no act however barbaric.
They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to
convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate
them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the
new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must
strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of
the struggle, not our enemies. And, together, we must prevail." As we meet
-- (applause).

As we meet, ladies and gentlemen, General Petraeus and his troops are in
the midst of some extremely tough, intense and dangerous work. The
President and I have been briefed on their progress. These American
soldiers represent the best that is in our country. They are well trained
and professional, their morale is high, they are giving this mission
everything they've got and they are doing an absolutely brilliant job.
(Applause.)

It's always the case in wartime that the heaviest duties fall on the men
and women of the military. The ones doing the fighting never lose their
focus on their mission or on what is at stake in this war, and neither
should the rest of us. Five-and-a-half years have passed since the attacks
of September 11, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 Americans
inside the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe
there's a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that
day and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country
against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts.

In fact, five-and-a-half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having
to confront a series of myths about the war on terror, myths that are often
repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on
terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion
from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and
defeating bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over
again, not as an argument but as an assertion meant to close off argument.

Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. The
most serious issue today for the whole world, he has said, is this third
world war that is raging in Iraq. He calls it a destiny between infidelity
and Islam. He said the whole world is watching this war and that it will
end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. And in words directed
at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us
to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the
Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be
success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United
States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the
struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from
their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in
that war and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines are
fighting al Qaeda terrorists today in Anbar province. U.S. and Iraqi forces
recently killed al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad who were responsible for
numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply
could not be more plain.

Here at home, that makes one thing above all very clear. If you support the
war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists
are fighting us. (Applause.)

The second myth is the most transparent. And that is the notion that one
can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements
needed to carry out their mission. Twisted logic is not exactly a new
phenomenon in Washington. But last month, it did reach new heights. At a
hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the
following question to General Petraeus, suppose we send you over to your
new job, only we tell you that you cannot have any additional troops. Can
you get your job done? General Petraeus replied, "No, sir."

Yet within his days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate
-- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus -- a large
group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements he
said were necessary. And, of course, the House of Representatives did pass
such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in
history that a Congress voted to send a new commander into battle and then
voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary in winning that battle. It
was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

The resolution that passed was not binding, only a statement of feelings.
Yet other threats have been made that would hamper the war effort and
interfere with the operational authority of the President and with our
military commanders. These, too, are counterproductive and send exactly the
wrong message. When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's
been called slow bleed, they're not supporting the troops, they are
undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory, but of
time limits -- (applause) -- when members speak not of victory but of time
limits, deadlines or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy
simply to watch the clock and wait us out. (Applause.)

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation
and the conduct of a war. That role is defined and limited by the
Constitution. After all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in
the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. (Applause.)

Congress does have the purse strings. And very soon, both houses will have
to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill to provide
emergency funding for the troops. And I sincerely hope the discussion this
time will be about winning in Iraq. (Applause.)

Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their
word. But the proof will come when it's time to provide the money. We
expect the House and Senate to meet the needs of our military and the
generals leading the troops in battle on time and in full measure.

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this one is also the
most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the
job is done will actually strengthen America's hand in the fight against
terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a full validation
of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists don't expect to beat us in a
standup fight. They never have. They're not likely to try. The only way we
can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission and the terrorists
do believe that they can force that outcome.

Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have
the stomach for a long-term fight. They cite the cases of Beirut in the
1980s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we
are weak and decadent and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in
and retreat. The result would be even greater danger to the United States
because, if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior
of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. (Applause.)

Believing they can break our will, they will become more audacious in their
tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, ever more
bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

And that leads me to the fourth and the cruelest myth of all and that is
the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious
consequences to the broader Middle East. I stand here today as a strong
supporter of Israel and Israel has never had a better friend in the White
House than George Bush. (Applause.)

Friends owe it to friends to be as candid as possible. So let me say that a
precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the
United States and the entire Middle East. It's not hard to imagine what
could occur if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend
themselves. Moderates would be crushed, Shiite extremists backed by Iran
could be in an all-out war with Sunni extremists led by al Qaeda and
remnants of the old Saddam regime. As this battle unfolded, Sunni
governments might feel compelled to back Sunni extremists in order to
counter growing Iranian influence, widening the conflict into a regional
war.

If Sunni extremists prevailed, al Qaeda and its allies would recreate the
safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, except now with the oil wealth to
pursue weapons of mass destruction and underwrite their terrorist designs,
including their pledge to destroy Israel.

If Iran's allies prevailed, the regime and Teheran's own designs for the
Middle East would be advanced and the threat to our friends in the region
would only be magnified.

My friends, it is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive
action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while, at the same
time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies
dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States,
dangerously weakened. (Applause.)

We must consider as well just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to
our other efforts in the war on terror and to our interests in the broader
Middle East. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look abroad for
new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan to fight alongside the
Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East,
spreading more discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine
moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in
other countries on other continents.

What would it say to the world if we left high and dry those millions of
people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? And
what would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf
who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror?

Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through the perceptive power of
hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance. A sudden
withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that's gone
into fighting the global war on terror and result in chaos and mounting
danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let
it happen. (Applause.)

Five-and-a-half years ago, the President told the Congress and the country
that we had entered a new kind of war, one that would require patience and
resolve, and that would influence the policies of this government far into
the future. The fact that we have succeeded in stopping another attack on
our homeland does not mean our country won't be hit in the future. But the
record is testimony, not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a
lot of very skilled men and women and to a series of tough decisions by a
President who never forgets his first job is to protect the people of this
country. (Applause.)

It would be easier, no doubt, to avoid controversy by following snapshot
polls or catering to elite opinion or seeking political refuge in
comfortable myths. President Bush understands, as Ronald Reagan did, that
if history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of
unpleasant facts is folly.

Either we are serious about fighting the war on terror or we are not.
Either we persevere despite difficulty or we turn our backs on our friends,
our commitments and our ideals. I, for one, have never had more confidence
in the outcome because America is the kind of country that fights for
freedom and because, at this very hour, our soldiers are engaging the enemy
on the field of battle. (Applause.)

One of the great examples of leadership in our world is that of Ariel
Sharon, a man of courage and a man of peace, who remains in our thoughts.
(Applause.) In his last speech at the United Nations, Prime Minister Sharon
said, his great passion in life was "manual labor, sowing and harvesting
the pastures, the flock and the cattle." "If the circumstances had not
demanded it," he said, "he would not have become a soldier but rather a
farmer, an agriculturalist." But life had other plans for this Israeli
patriot, and he did his duty until the very ending of his strength.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the circumstances have demanded much of this great
nation, but we are more than equal to the test. America is a good and an
honorable country. (Applause.) We serve a cause that is right and a cause
that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We are
defended by some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. We
are in a war that was begun on the enemy's terms. We are fighting that war
on our own terms, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

Thank you all very much. (Applause.)

END 9:37 A.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070312.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)