CNN War Correspondent Agrees With Bush

Bottom Line Up Front:  CNN war correspondent Michael Ware, who has been in Iraq for 4 years, agrees “absolutely” when President Bush says a date to withdraw US troops from Iraq emboldens America’s enemies.

After a report on the difference in rhetoric between Pres. Bush and D-Sen. Harry Reid yesterday on war funding, CNN’s The Situation Room host asked war correspondent Michael Ware in Baghdad if he agreed with the President’s assertion that setting a troop withdrawal date emboldened our enemies. His detailed reply might surprise you.

Q:  “Do you think the President as well as the Vice President, then, are actually correct and accurate when they describe to the American people saying, look, all this infighting is weakening our position overseas, particularly in Baghdad?”

WARE: “Oh, absolutely…..  When you’re fighting a war, you want a clear and concise direction.  You want everyone on the same page and you want your enemy to know that you shalt not falter.  Now that’s the precisely the opposite message that America is sending to its opponents herein the region.  And quite frankly, that’s why America’s rivals in the Middle East are becoming so much stronger and the concept of American empire or American presence is becoming so much weaker.”

DOH! Watch the whole thing:

Other points:

• a deadline for withdrawal “absolutely would play completely into the hands of America’s identified enemies, al-Qaeda and Iran. That would be handing the entire advantage to them. That’s why that can never really happen.”
• “We saw from 2003, the Baathist insurgents saying from the beginning, ‘this war will not be one on the battlefield, it will be won on that, pointing to a TV screen’.”
• Pres. Bush is correct when they infighting weakens US positions overseas, particularly in Baghdad.
• the infighting over Iraq in the Senate and Congress emboldens our enemies in the Middle East and weakens the U.S. reputation.

Michael Ware echoed the same sentiment as GEN Peter Pace in February who said that our ‘Enemies See Debate in Congress as Weakness’  .

Trackback URL:   
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/995710

Comments

[Gawfer]

Allow me to repost my comment from your previous post:

...Which explains why 'Hadji Girl', 'The Damascus Diva' Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria to become an Evinrude in a Cesspool...

She is one of the clear sources of the disruption within this administration, and appears to be conciously trying to sink the efforts of the President and our military.

She is the perfect example of anti-American sentiment.

[CalPatriot]

Pelosi comes from a once beautiful city (before the 1960s) known as San Francisco. When the Republicans left, or were forced out, the city has degraded into a cesspool over her direct influence and watch. The city has become so filthy, dangerous and scummy, that even the older Democrats, most who were around during WWII, complain that the lefty-liberals have turned SF into a third-world cesspool. Nancy has said she takes pride in her S.F. accomplishments. Strait from the horses' mouth. San Franciscans can look forward to further denigration, crime, and filth as no Republicans in sight attempt to run for local offices, inciting the minions of the left. Doesn't that make one feel warm inside? Now Pelosi has taken her model to Washington and if fate allows, she will get more powerful and cesspools for everyone will be the word of the day.

[Steph]

Not if we can help it and apparently she can be "impeached" for flaunting the will of the President on this matter.Especially in light of opinions of her conduct.
Nancy Pelosi Strikes Again

[Steph]

hmmm... must have made a typo in coding.

Nancy Pelosi Strikes Again: http://www.hillbillypolitics.com/

[ProphetJoe]

Gawfer said: "...Which explains why 'Hadji Girl', 'The Damascus Diva' Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria to become an Evinrude in a Cesspool..."

Damn it, Gawfer. You and your kind offend the hell out of me when you compare something as fine and wonderful as an Evinrude to Nancy Pelosi! Stop it!!

[Amy P]

I hope some people will view the video... it's really outstanding commentary on the consequences of the Democratic plan to withdrawal the troops from a source not inclined to agree with the administration.

[Leticia]

Finally someone on a left-wing news program that agrees with the president! It's about time. I don't think it will one bit of difference though.

I won't get into the Nancy "anti-American" Pelosi debate. I will just agree with Calpatriot. He said it with perfect clarity.

[Steph]

"I don't think it will one bit of difference though."

It will make a difference. He'll get crucified for daring to go against the left's dichotmy, then they'll gag him so he can't continue to agree.

[Amy P]

Steph, Michael Ware, as you know, is no Republican but he seems to be relatively fair. He got into it with John McCain the other day over the safety of Baghdad, and since they were both there I don't want to argue the point too much..... point being Ware was brutally honest in his assessment that a date for withdrawal will make oue enemy more bold.

The difference it'll make will be nill unless enough people see the report and are willing to be honest about it. That's unlikely.

[mudkitty]

How cute - all of a sudden you rightwingers agree with Ware. All the while taking his statement out of context. But hey - it's what rightwingers do.

[KEvron]

I have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

[Gayle]

Would someone please explain to mudmouth that we agree with anyone who is right; doesn't matter whether they are a Democrat or a Republican. Unlike the current crop of Democrats, we don't disagree just to be disagreeing. We only disagree with people who are wrong. Nevermind. I guess I just did. :)

[mudkitty]

Gayle, I'm tracking your stalking of me.

[Amy Proctor]

First of all, mudkitty, check out my rules of engagement. Your comments are condescending and snotty. I'd hate to have to ban you but I will.

Secondly, please provide the context that we've missed from Michael Ware. As I recall, he was asked, following a report about the Bush/Reid statements about war funding, if he believed it were true that the terrorists really are emboldened by a withdrawal date. He said yes indeed. What's taken out of context?

Michael Ware is on the ground and has been for some time. I have no idea if he's out and about in the cities like, for example, Richard Engel was, but I respect his reporting. He tends to be a bit negative sometimes but anyone in a war zone seeing what he sees would be.

[Steph]

Amy, I know who Michael Ware is. I also know who he works for which is why I said what I said. The extreme left has a tendency to hush up anybody who disagrees with their view on thing... or make them pay in some other way.I'm glad he had the courage to tell the truth but he probably realizes that it won't make his time at CNN very comfortable if he does that sort of thing often. That is, unless CNN has decided that it needs to be more balanced in what it reports. I suppose that can happen, :)

[Amy Proctor]

Steph, I know you get it, and I agree that CNN is liberal. I was rebutting mudkitty's comments.

:)

[Very Rev. Fr. Gregori]

I personnally cannot understand how anyone could deny that a date certain for withdrawal would indeed embolden the enemy. The Islamist terrorists may be violent, but they certainly are not stupid.

If president Bush were to set a definite date for troop withdrawal, the enemy would just lay low and wait until that date, at which time they will kill as many of our retreating soldiers as they could, then all hell will break loose all over Iraq.

After that, you can expect to see a sudden increase of attacks on American bases and embassies around the world as well as attacks right here in the U.S.

[CalPatriot]

Iranian Puppet king wouldn’t dare take 15 American Hostages. I would love to see him try.

Like it or not, this Stalinist move by the foreign committee and Nancy “The Usurper & Cesspool” Pelosi will do all in their power to stop The Global War on Terror and make friends with the anti- Israeli camp. She can be impeached for what she’s doing but these Stalincrats have taken control of capital hill; only Bush’s veto can save us, hopefully. Reminds me of how many lefty-liberals supported England in the American Revolution, and only a few Republicans won the whole battle for us.

[Douglas V. Gibbs]

Won't be long before denial takes over. The MSM will either deny it was ever said, or deny that he is one of them.

[Gawfer]

Sorry for wandering off course a bit... I was a bit aggravated the night I posted that comment.

And sorry prophet Joe for slandering Evinrude. Gayle said it succinctly; for me that is. I don't disagree for the mere fun of being disagreeable, I disagree when I feel someone or something is wrong.

In this case, MW got it right. What makes this case so outstanding is I think it’s the first time.

[Leticia]

MW has his good points and I, at least, can give him credit where credit is due. He did a great job this time around.

Let's hope people will listen and not dismiss his commentary.

[Mavic]

Mudkitty,

Remember, only like minded followers are allowed to be "snotty". Otherwise you better get your curtsy together.

[Gawfer]

Here's a kleenex Mavic. Wipe your nose

[grumpy old fart]

Yes, leaving would embolden the "enemy". And?

Unless we are going to dig in for decades (if even then), we are not going to "secure" Iraq in the fashion and for the purpose your glorious leader envisioned just post 9/11.

BTW, Michael Ware is indeed a good source for facts on the ground. Like his putting the lie to your consistently rosy picture of "the surge".

[Mavic]

lol grumpy!

That is pure gold

[grumpy old fart]

Thank you Mavic. And?

[grumpy old fart]

:)

[Amy Proctor]

Mavic, I bend over backwards not to be snotty. I put up with a lot of crap no one knows about in order to promote a relatively dignified discussion. Mudkitty has been abrasive and obnoxious since she first posted. I have a right to ask the ROE be respected.

And I totally don't get what you're gloating about, grumpy and Mavic. What was pure gold?

We very well could be in Iraq for decades. And? How long have we been in Germany? Japan? No one ever thought Japan would be a close ally...

As for the Michael Ware video you posted with John McCain, I saw it and think McCain is right; Ware is right as well..... as I said above, I have no idea how much Ware is out from the Green Zone. The siutation differs depending on the day. My previous entry via ABC News was that the surge was working and Baghdad is becoming safer. The video doesn't lie..

And many of McCains comments were taken out of context. He didn't say Americans could walk through the street with no security, he said they could walk through some neighborhoods. That's true. He didn't say GEN Petraeus had no security on his Hummer, he was referring to uparmored Hum-Vs and I can show you photos of GEN Petraeus walking around Baghdad with no kevlar, only a cap.

Now this is what GEN Petraeus had to say about McCain via his PBS interview on April 4:

McCain's visit to Baghdad

JIM LEHRER: Senator McCain was with you last weekend in Baghdad. And he was talking about how he was able to walk around on the streets of Baghdad, particularly in a market. But today Iraqi tradesmen in Baghdad called that whole thing a propaganda move.

What can you tell us about that? Was it just simply a propaganda move, a photo-op?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: No, I mean, he spent an hour in the market. I was actually with him. He was in a baseball cap. He did wear body armor, because we advised that he ought to do that. Certainly, there was security around him. I mean, nobody ever wants to lose, you know, senior senator or the multinational force Iraq commander in their area of operations.

But having said that, there were tens of thousands of Iraqis in that market. It's the largest or second-largest market in Baghdad. It is one of those that has been hardened by the placement of concrete barriers literally all around it.

And it may be as much as a kilometer, almost a mile long, so this is an enormous market, as I said, tens of thousands of Iraqis in it. He was not protected by a cocoon of security. Yep, there was security there, but he was out -- actually he helped the Iraqi economy quite a bit, bought a number of carpets, in fact. And he haggled with the merchants himself, with an interpreter, and was moving all around very freely.

So, I mean, he asked to be allowed to drive down the airport road, to be able to go out and actually see some parts of Baghdad that congressional delegations do not normally see. We go down to these markets fairly frequently, several times a week, to see how it's going, and the revival of the markets is one of those indicators, in fact, that we watch.

And it was good to be able to let him see one of these very vibrant markets, which, by the way, eight weeks ago, was hit by a car bomb, before right around the start of the Baghdad security operation, with devastating effects, with dozens and dozens of Iraqis killed, before vehicles were excluded from traveling into the market during its operation.

JIM LEHRER: But as you know, the reports describe that situation slightly differently. They say there were armed helicopters overhead. There were armed Humvees all around. There were more than 100 armed U.S. troops around, protecting Senator McCain and the congressional delegation, that this was hardly a routine visit to a market. So which is it?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Well, there was considerable security, as I said, Jim, around it. Actually, there's security when I go down there, as well.

But having said that, I mean, a suicide vest bomber could have walked up to him just as easily as they could have walked up to me. We were not, you know, surrounding him, again, with some kind of cocoon of soldiers. He moved around freely.

We have helicopters usually flying when I'm actually out in the markets, as well, I mean, sometimes whether you know it or not, because, as I mentioned, no one wants to lose, you know, some high-ranking guy on their watch.

Again, having said that, there are snipers that are always possible. There are others who are possible in these marketplaces. You cannot control that kind of activity. And, again, I thought, you know, it was a fairly routine stop out there, in terms of just sort of strolling through a market, albeit with, you know, squads of guys out there in that marketplace.

But they are fairly heavily patrolled markets anyway, with Iraqi -- these markets are always controlled during the time that they're in operation to prevent vehicles, in fact, from moving through the access barriers when those markets are open. They're only allowed to move vehicles in and out, when the markets are shut, to deliver goods. And then they're excluded.

JIM LEHRER: Senator McCain also said the news media, American news media, was not giving the American people the full picture of what was happening in Iraq. Do you share that?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Jim, that's a tough one. I mean, I think that, if there is a sensational attack in Iraq, it deserves coverage. But that does tend to crowd out the fact that, in a city like Baghdad, there will be seven million people going about their daily lives, despite the fact that there may have been violence in the city that day.

As we drive around, as we fly around, you know, there are soccer leagues out here. The national soccer team is on its practice fields. There are all the signs of normalcy in Baghdad, albeit, again, in a city that may have been hit by violence on that given day.

Michael Ware got excited in the You Tube clip you linked to because there were *gasp* helicopters in the background and a gun battle going on. DUH! It's a WAR!

Michael Ware is right on this issue about Democrats emboldening our enemy.... or are you now selectively deciding to disagree with him on this while agreeing with him on the McCain issue? THAT's golden.

[grumpy old fart]

"Michael Ware is right on this issue about Democrats emboldening our enemy.... or are you now selectively deciding to disagree with him..."

I disagreed with him? Look at my comment again.

[Amy P]

I don't see that you agreed with his comments in the segment I posted in which he said the Democrats plan for withdrawing the troops embolden America's enemies.

[Amy P]

I don't see that you agreed with his comments in the segment I posted in which he said the Democrats plan for withdrawing the troops embolden America's enemies.

[grumpy old fart]

In my comment I agreed with Ware, and went on to essentially say "so what". That's what the "And" meant.

Do I have to explain everything?

The truth of the matter is that this administration jumped headlong into the terrorists' fondest wet dream. We started a war in an Islamic country, affording them a real life training ground (a buffet of Americans. What could be sweeter?) and a phenomenal recruiting tool.

Remember how well we screwed the Russians by promoting jihad in Afghanistan? Can you say blow back? I knew you could. I guess you could also say Amnesia.

Or is if just hubris?

Your glorious leader believed, had faith, that somehow he could buck history, and overcome the obvious quagmire to come. Four years and billions later, the obvious is still trying to penetrate the bubble.

[Cobra]

Grumpy,

They don't want the truth. They want to hear people who agree with them. Do you see what they're doing with the latest National Guard deployment? Our military is BROKEN. I was posting these kind of warnings from generals here for a long time.

You're absolutely right about "emboldening" the enemy. The "enemy", whichever faction you want to label, LIVES THERE.
We don't, and it costs us tremendous blood and treasure to stay there for the hope of...what?

Betting that the Sunni and Shiia decide to play nice enough so that the new oil legislation goes through?

--Cobra

[Amy Proctor]

grumpy, no one from Bush Sr to Clinton was bold enough to do what needed to be done. This situation has needed to be rectified 15 years ago. The goal of the US since 1990 has been to overthrow Saddam and install and support a Democratic government. Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and Clinton's explanation of why he bombed Saddam's WMD sites in Dec. 1998 on my sidebar. What Bush is doing has been US policy since 1990.

The problem is, of course, what do to after taking out Saddam. We cannot take him out, including the government, and not expect there to be a backlash that will take years to settle. What I don't understand is why you people pretend to be so damned concerned about the military. The military wants to be there, they choose to enlist and they are willing to stay for many years. So why do you fight it? I suspect your reasons are purely political.

"Billions later" my ass. If you're so concerned about the money you'd lobby to stop Medicaid funded abortions or the study of cow flatulence and it's affect on the environment. If you were concerned about the money you'd be pulling for the US to stop funding the U.N., which is totally impotent to do anything productive in the world. You're not; you're concerned with stopping a war because you'd rather be the winner of an argument that doesn't immediately affect you than to lose to Bush. It's that simple.

Too bad for you, Bush will veto the Senate bill and we'll stay in Iraq past '08.

Cobra, this is what your beloved Clinton had to say about Shia and Sunni sectarianism in Iraq in 1998:

I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

And then there's THIS.

[grumpy old fart]

Where to begin?

"The goal of the US since 1990 has been to overthrow Saddam and install and support a Democratic government" And? Just because Clinton said it (and I have some quibble with what he actually meant) doesn't make it a great idea. See above comment. Sorry, all libs don't unquestioningly follow a fuhrer.

"What I don't understand is why you people pretend to be so damned concerned about the military."

I can't speak for "you people", but I'm not concerned for the reasons you think. Wasting resources, men and materials, on ill defined, ill planned or spurious "missions" is a always a bad thing. Just because "the troops" love it is no reason to carry on. (BTW, the matter of the troops being so gung-ho on this boondoggle is highly questionable. More on that another day)

"If you're so concerned about the money you'd lobby to stop Medicaid funded abortions or the study of cow flatulence and it's affect on the environment."

Stop and think for a minute. That's just stupid on its face. Unless I address all causes of government waste I can't address any?

"Bush will [keep us] in Iraq past '08"

If that's the kind of "victory" he, and you, are looking for, god help us all.

[Amy Proctor]

Grumpy, no, unless you’re prepared to address other financial expenditures that involve morality and deaths that go ignored it’s unfair to label the war effort as such and feel justified in doing so. The war in Iraq is not a waste of either human or monetary treasure. It will only be if we pull out now.

You may not remember, but Democrats were totally supportive of Clinton’s initiative on Iraq in the 1990’s. They all agreed on the threat and the solution. Bush is doing nothing other than what Democrat advocated for over a decade. It’s only political points that have turned them from the effort now because in war, it’s easy to point to blood and hardship to cash in on cheaply won points.

I live the military life. My husband is a troop; all our friends are troops. 99% of our friends totally support this effort. They’re informed on the threat, the mission and implications of both victory and loss and that’s why they support it. It’s inconsequential to me that civilians don’t get it except that it plays into the hands of our enemies, whom soldiers face daily on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no separating Iraq from the war on terror.

I know liberals are willing to sacrifice American lives for a facade of peace… it happened at Pearl Harbor and 9/11… they’re willing to take pot shots and as long as it doesn’t affect their personal lives, they see it as a small price to pay because it was only some Americans who bought it. Yet they are not willing to let some Americans protect all by confronting the enemy overseas instead. Would it be better to let an undistracted enemy coordinate their efforts on American soil instead? There’s no doubt efforts have been made but the battle field has shifted from NYC or LA to Baghdad.

The deceit you guys have bought into is that our enemy is content with pot shots. Unfortunately, if your course is the one taken a bigger execution of plans than 9/11 will take place, and it’ll happen with a WMD of some sort, wiping out millions of Americans. Then, of course, you can probably justify that by blaming whoever the last Republican president was.

The necessity of stopping this enemy in light of 9/11, which sealed the fate of Saddam and al-Qaeda, is undeniable. It’s really no sweat off your back, grumpy; how much money have you lost in the war effort? How much blood and tears? None of the above. You haven’t noticed any loss in any category. Those of us who have still support the effort because we get it. If you don’t, fine, but don’t insist to those of us who have a virtual investment in this accept your opinion. We don’t.

[grumpy old fart]

"There’s no doubt efforts have been made but the battle field has shifted from NYC or LA to Baghdad"

Oh, please. It is we who have had our focus shifted from protecting NYC and LA to protecting Baghdad. Funding for port security, airport security technology, first responders, etc. goes begging while we blithely allow billions to simply go missing in Iraq.

"how much money have you lost in the war effort?"

Unlike some, I don't consider tax money to be "the governement's" money to piss away as they wish. It's my money, taxpayer money, and I pay plenty of it. Although I must admit, war can be extremely profitable for some, especially when it's done with no oversight.

"don’t insist to those of us who have a virtual investment in this accept your opinion"

I never insist, I only suggest.

Your investment is real (not virtual) and I do respect those who serve and sacrifice, though you may doubt it. However, ours is a civilian run military, and our foreign policy has little to do with what the common soldier does, or does not, think is right. (BTW, here's some opinionconter to your informal polls. I know, I know, it's a year old and things have gotten sooo much better.)

[Mavic]

"99% of our friends totally support this effort. "

Thats because you mostly surround yourself with like-minded sycophants, who will go along with anything and everything you have to say.

"Would it be better to let an undistracted enemy coordinate their efforts on American soil instead? "

Another parroted total myth propagated by Perle, Rove and company. If Americans want to really overcome terrorism, they'd be looking at the root of the problem, which, undoubtedly stems from a plethora of mistaken foreign policy decisions over the last 40-50 years. The whole "yankees goonna get demm' terrorists real good" might sound real mighty and tough, for television cameras and blog entries, but in reality, it only serves as a detriment to any long term solutions to multi-dimensional and complex problems around the world.

[Amy Proctor]

grumpy, I'm not going to dissect your poll but let's just say... it's dated March 1, 2006. The poll has to do with when they thought redeployment would be feisable. You left out this from the poll:

“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.”

Mavic, the Army doesn't let you choose who to surround yourself with. The Army tells you where to go and who you'll be working with.

There's no way you can prove it's a myth. In fact, the opposite is true. If there were no efforts to attack America, how do you explain the World Trade Center attacks of '93 or 9/11? How do you explain the attempted attacks within the US since 9/11 that have been thwarted?

So it's America's fault there's terrorism. Pricless.

[grumpy old fart]

Amy,

The blurb you chose to highlight from the poll report was a COMMENT by
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus.

I'm very disappointed in you.

BTW, "The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks."

[Amy Proctor]

grumpy, you're not my dad so don't pretend to be disappointed. My personal experience lines up far more closely with Congressmen Wilson's sentiments than the year old poll data.

And it seems the troops have more insight than the general public... 9/11 was the last straw for Saddam and I believe is why we finally went. The "axis of evil", identifying our enemy thing was probably the greatest contributor. Here, let me restate myself from an earlier entry:

It is clear that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaeda and although it may not have been a "symbiotic, operational" relationship, one certainly existed. It isn't hard to believe in such a relationship existed after considering that Saddam was a secular Sunni; Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are Sunni extremists called Wahabbi. Both are outside of traditional Islamic principles and with their violent ideology cloaked in religion that is rejected by Muslims as blasphemous (Hirabah). An alliance between the two, while perhaps not "symbiotic", is fully reasonable as mutually satisfying.

WATCH THIS VIDEO (scroll down the entry)

I have no desire to spend my day studying that 42% who "are unsure of their mission in Iraq", but here's a thought from the article:

But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.

“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll, saying they did not have details on how the survey was conducted.

.....“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

I wonder why the particulars weren't made available? Even more, you gotta wonder how the consensus can be so much higher for a military that notoriously supports this mission.... clearly something is amiss in this poll.

[grumpy old fart]

"And it seems the troops have more insight than the general public"

What, that "...Saddam’s [had a] role in the Sept. 11 attacks"????

Even your own Fuhrer doesn't claim that "insight".

[Amy P]

You shouldn't go by a title for the video made up by a neoleftist who hates Bush and wants to make a point. Bush did not "admit Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11" in the video. Did you actually watch it?

He said Saddam had the capacity to make WMD in Iraq. He said Saddam was dangerous and lived in a part of the world in which terrorists want to kill Americans. He then said Saddam did not order the 9/11. The lesson of 9/11 is to take threats before they fully materialize.

This totally buttresses what I said, grumpy, that 9/11 hastened the mission in Iraq, in which US policy since 1990 was regime change in Iraq and, according to Bill Clinton:

"Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

"The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

"My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

And:

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Faced with Saddam’s latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

“In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq’s prohibited weapons program.”

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam’s deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

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

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

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

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

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

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team — including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser — I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam’s capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler’s report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq’s a month’s head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion — resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq’s neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government — a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm’s way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm’s way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America’s vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Furher? Oh, brother. Do me a favor and don't refer to our C-in-C that way. It's highly offensive to military families such as ourselves. It's also asinine and a stupid thing to say.

[Carson Bevan]

Amy, I appreciate your defense of doing what is right, I commend your ability to stay civil with dishonorable people who undermine our commander in chief and advocate for American defeat to terrorist organizations so Democrats can win elections. In my opinion, what these people are doing is utterly despicable.