posted on October 23, 2004 12:30:19 AM
Bush & Co. have trotted out yet another justification for invading Iraq: "Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable..." Wow! Israel should be worried in light of this announcement, as it is certainly the most festering & unstable area of the middle east. It's almost funny watching Bush & Co. squirm, changing their story as they are caught out in lies & searching for something to blame their actions on besides themselves.
Rice defends decision to go to war in Iraq
Democrats question timing of showdown-state speeches
Friday, October 22, 2004 Posted: 3:47 PM EDT (1947 GMT)
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, but Iraq contributed to an atmosphere in the Middle East that promoted terrorism, the White House national security adviser said Thursday.
The United States once viewed acts of terrorism too narrowly, and had to invade Iraq to disrupt terrorism in the Middle East that had gone unchecked, Condoleezza Rice told the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh.
"While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the actual attacks on America, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a part of the Middle East that was festering and unstable ... was part of the circumstances that created the problem on September 11," Rice said.
The price of the war, both in lives and dollars, must be endured to create a permanent peace, said Rice, who repeatedly defended the administration's decision to invade Iraq.
Rice said she did not know if there are more terrorists operating in Iraq today than before the war, but said the U.S. invasion is not the cause if they are in Iraq.
She talked about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist who has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and is believed to be behind several beheadings in Iraq. The United States is offering $25 million for information leading to al-Zarqawi's death or capture.
"Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq well before the war and he knows the territory, so to speak," Rice said. "And of course, when we decided to challenge (the terrorists) finally, they come out, they come out to fight."
Democrats have accused the Bush administration of sending the national security adviser, a historically nonpolitical position, to stump for the president in crucial swing states.
President Bush was also in Pennsylvania on Thursday, his 40th visit to the nation's fifth-largest prize, with 21 electoral votes.
The White House contacted the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh over the summer to say Rice would be in the region and that an address to the group could be a "target of opportunity," said Schuyler Foerster, council president.
In a letter addressed to the council, a state Democratic organization urged the group to reschedule the visit for after the election.
"At minimum, having Dr. Rice at this point in the campaign is a naive error in judgment -- and at maximum, could be perceived as an attempt to influence the election," wrote Art DeCoursey, coordinator of John Kerry's campaign in western Pennsylvania.
Forester said he hadn't seen such a letter, which the Kerry campaign said was faxed to his group Wednesday, but even if he had, he would not have changed the date of Rice's address.
"I'm not going to shut down the council for six months and say I can't have publicly accountable officials address our members on key issues of national interest," Foerster said. "In past elections, you couldn't get anyone to care about foreign policy, but we've got a thousand people here today and I think it's a fair representation of the country out there."
Rice is scheduled to give speeches in Michigan and Florida over the next week. In recent days, she has appeared in Ohio, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington state. Until May, Rice had not made any speeches in states considered political battlegrounds. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, showdown states)
posted on October 23, 2004 07:11:00 AM
I saw someone with a tagline not too long ago.
"If the Arabs would put down their weapons, there would be no more war.
If the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israelis."
That pretty much sums it up.
--------------------------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on October 23, 2004 07:38:59 AMIsrael must be worried. Yep, they have a lot to be worried about should kerry get elected. He's an Internationalist who would go right along with world opinion....rather than do what is right.
Charles Krauthammer: kerry's FALSE Plan.
[townhall.com - yesterday]
WASHINGTON -- The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our help, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this.
The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad. Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I do, that he means it.
He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.
Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?
The answer is obvious: Israel.
In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places like Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.
No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines. Read what former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger said in ``Foreign Policy for a Democratic President,´´ a manifesto written while he was a senior foreign policy adviser to Kerry.
``As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in ... ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ... As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq.´´
So in a ``new bargain with our allies´´ America ``re-engages´´ in the ``peace process´´ in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do not be fooled by the euphemism ``peace process.´´ We know what ``peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat´s deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing.
Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.
``Re-engage in the peace process´´ is precisely what the Europeans, the Russians and the United Nations have been pressuring the United States to do for years. Do you believe any of them have Israel´s safety at heart? They would sell out Israel in an instant, and they are pressuring America to do precisely that.
Why are they so upset with Bush's Israeli policy? After all, isn't Bush the first president ever to commit the United States to an independent Palestinian state? Bush's sin is that he also insists the Palestinians genuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt, dictatorial terrorist leadership of Yasser Arafat.
To re-engage in a ``peace process´´ while the violence continues and while Arafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle East policy. That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel´s right to defend itself both by attacking the terror infrastructure and by building a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada and producing an astonishing 84 percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.
John Kerry says he wants to ``rejoin the community of nations.´´ There is no issue on which the United States more fails the global test of international consensus than Israel. Last July, the General Assembly declared Israel´s defensive fence illegal by a vote of 150-6. In defending Israel, America stood almost alone.
You want to appease the ``international community´´? Sacrifice Israel. Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of ``peace." Apply relentless pressure on Israel to make concessions to a Palestinian leadership that has proved (at Camp David 2000) it will never make peace.
---------
