For more than a year now, my Administration has maintained that the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq is a strategic priority for the United States and, indeed, the peace-loving global community. Many of you—both here and abroad—remain unconvinced. We have stressed the brutality of Saddam and his murderous regime. We have highlighted his historical pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We have attempted—with little success--to link his regime to the bloody al Qaeda terrorist network. Yet, many of you remain skeptical.
Show us the proof, some have said. Show us a smoking gun—satellite photos of nuclear facilities, for example. We have not shared such information with you because, frankly, our intelligence agencies cannot agree on the quality and significance of what we have and we cannot run the risk of releasing information which Saddam can easily prove to be false. We don't really know for sure whether Saddam has any viable weapons of mass destruction, nor do we much care.
Tonight, against the advice of my advisors who believe the American public cannot comprehend an argument more complex than “he’s an evil man who gasses his own people,” I have decided to tell you exactly why I believe the removal of Saddam Hussein and the introduction of democratic institutions in Iraq is the difficult, but right, path to the ultimate elimination of the threat of terrorist attacks on our shores.
There are many who will claim that invading Iraq is a reckless path, fraught with potential perils. They will say our success is by no means assured. That the journey is long and treacherous. That we run the risk of alienating our allies around the world. But, I feel it is the right course for America in these extraordinary times. And because I am your President, I get to decide. I am not worried about the consequences and you shouldn’t be either. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in life it is that there are no consequences--Poppy and his friends can fix any mess I create.
The world has changed dramatically since the end of World War II. Thanks in large measure to the success of the European Union—and especially to the leadership of our great and permanent allies, France and Germany--the continent has enjoyed more than 50 years of peace and prosperity. Communism has collapsed. Russia and the now-independent states of the old Soviet Union are all moving toward free markets and open societies. China is quietly but steadily moving toward free markets. The world is far from perfect, but it has never seen a period of greater opportunity for the flowering of individual liberties.
What has not changed is the Middle East. The Arab world remains mired in the mud of ancient rivalries and hatreds, isolated from the currents of modernization, commerce and tolerance that have reshaped much of the globe. Poverty, ignorance, religious extremism, superstition and hatred of the secular West—often inspired and tacitly supported by despotic regimes who fear for their hold on power—have created an environment where terrorists like Osama bin Laden can flourish and readily find adherents and financial backing.
This is not even to mention that they are all going to hell because they believe in the wrong God.
Now, I’ll admit that part of the Arab failure is our fault. For many years, successive American administrations—Republican and Democrat—have preferred to deal with ruthless leaders who delivered stability in oil supplies in exchange for our complicity in the subjugation of their people. We have held our noses and bought their oil, turning a blind eye to the widespread abuses of basic human liberties and the growing clamor of the forces of radical Islam. We have sold out our country’s values to keep America’s freeways humming.
Our role in the Arab world has been far too passive and undemanding. Americans have been economic partners in Saudi Arabia for six generations and in Egypt for three. The general populace of both countries hate us more today than when we arrived. In hindsight, which is always 20-20, maybe we should have used some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we’ve poured into Arab countries in the form of oil purchases and direct aid to demand that these tyrannical governments begin a reform movement toward democracy and free markets. Instead, we have enriched a small elite group of despots who support terror against us while maintaining they are our friends.
The lesson of 9/11 is that we can no longer afford to play that game. Terrorists have shown that they can strike anywhere—even on our own soil—at any time. We cannot simply contain and wait out our enemies until they learn—as the Soviet Communist world learned—that free markets and personal liberties are the surest route to economic equity for the largest number of people.
We must actively engage the forces of radical Islam on their own turf. We must demonstrate, by overwhelming and vengeful military force, that we will not tolerate attacks on our citizens—either here or abroad. At the same time, we must also tell the world that we are not oppressors or religious warriors but the enabling force for a social and economic revolution that will bring the Arab world into the 21st century, and with it peace and prosperity for all its citizens.
Many who are opposed to any invasion of Iraq have characterized our pursuit as a “war for oil.” That simplifies the argument because it seems to pit greedy oil exploiters against an assault on an established nation-state whose ability to defend itself is, I’ll admit, limited. While securing the future of the second largest pool of oil in the world is a bonus that gives us the flexibility to leverage our relationships with other nations in the region, it is not the main reason behind our efforts. Nor is this a matter of unfinished business left over from my father’s war in Iraq.
What is the war with Iraq about, then?
We can all surely agree that the major challenge we face today as a nation is how best to make America safe from the kind of devastating attack that crippled our great country on September 11, 2001. Although we cannot directly implicate Iraq is that event, I have been convinced by a small group of Israeli operatives within my administration that the most direct route to an end to militant Islamic terrorist attacks on the U.S. and its allies runs directly through Baghdad.
Some of these foreign policy advisors have argued for nearly a decade that only a radical, U.S.-led realignment of power in the Middle East will bring peace to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Since 9/11, they have added “and end terrorism” to their mantra. That is enough to convince me.
The fact that some of these advisors have extraordinarily close relationships with Israel’s Likud party and Benjamin Netanyahu should not concern you or in any way diminish their arguments. These are smart men who have read a lot of books about war and military strategy. Also, remember, following their plan does not in any way restrict my ability—or the ability of future Presidents--to double cross them later on the matters of Jewish settlements or Palestinian autonomy. Other, more politically sensitive, advisors will make that call when the time is right.
I have decided that Iraq is the right place to begin the realignment and reformation of the Arab world mainly because—both politically and militarily--it is the easiest and most deserving target. If my advisors are right, the liberation of Iraq will encourage the surging democratic movement in Iran, creating a great arc of freedom, stretching across the whole northern span of the Mideast from Turkey to Iran. Just as we reshaped Japan and Germany after World War II, we will rebuild that long tortured country and create a model of democracy, human rights and free markets that will offer a viable and attractive alternative to the anger and despair that fuels terrorism and anti-Americanism.
Forget what I once said about “nation-building.” I was naive and wrong. Also, do not consider Afghanistan a test of our prowess at rebuilding. We are not much interested in that country because it has little strategic value to us and our policy of bribing the warlords to keep the peace seems to be working effectively
After Saddam is removed from power, democratic groups in neighboring countries—with the help of our CIA--will take up the mantle of enlightenment—their leaders will change or their people will change them. Our great success in South and Latin America in the 1950s demonstrates how good we are at this sort of thing.
So, this is our main goal in Iraq—the launching of a democratic revolution that will ultimately sweep through the Middle East and create an Arab world that more closely mirrors the social, economic and religious values of Christian America. Oil, human rights abuses, weapons of mass destruction are all secondary issues.
There are those who will say my plan is reckless, that there are too many unknown consequences, that we run the risk of triggering widespread unrest in the Arab world, perhaps toppling the military government in Pakistan and allowing that country’s nuclear capability to fall into the hands of religious extremists. They will say that Iraq, with its historically divided ethnic groups and hatreds, will implode without strong central authority. They will say that we will have to keep American troops in Iraq for decades to assure the peace. They will warn of retaliatory strikes on American targets at home and abroad. Others will say that we have no business acting as policeman of the world in any event. They will invoke the specter of Armageddon.
They will countenance a more cautious approach--shoring up our defenses and our borders, improving the quality of our intelligence-gathering agencies, strengthening our law-enforcement capabilities while protecting the rights of our citizens, building stronger—not weaker--partnerships with our allies, creating substantive programs that reach out to the Arab world, patiently tracking down and bringing to justice every individual involved in the 9/11 attacks and the assaults on other American interests abroad, and using the power and prestige of the United States to force our Arab “allies” to democratize and the Israelis and Palestinians to make peace.
The risks of confronting the Arab world head-on are too great, they will say. They will point to Iran as an example of how the mullahs always wear out their welcome eventually. Saddam cannot last forever, they will say. Play nice with the Europeans, they will say. They may have some legitimate concerns. Give the UN inspectors more time.
Frankly, I don’t give a gopher’s ass what they say.
I’m from Texas and down in Texas we believe in action, not words, and we don’t govern by committee. I am not a patient man, I am not an analytical man, and—contrary to what you may have heard—I am not a conservative man. I am a wildcatter and a risk-taker. I have an instinctive feel for the right thing to do.
And right now my instincts tell me that the right thing to do is to repay the debt of 9/11 by completely destroying the Arab world and starting over again. We must teach these people a lesson about civility and decent, law-abiding behavior in the modern world—even if we have to use tactical nuclear weapons and kill thousands of people to do so. If, in the process, we expose them to a more benevolent God, than that is all to the good.
If am right, I will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time. If I am wrong, I will still be remembered.
We are going to invade Iraq because I have a feeling—call it a hunch or a gut instinct--that it is the right thing to do. And my momma told me to always believe in my feelings.
We are going to invade Iraq because I am the President and can make it so.
And because nobody can stop me.
Good night and God help America.
George W. Bush
The original text of this patriotic message can be found at Best of the Blogs
This email message does not forward easily. If you wish to share the President's good cheer with another voter,
you are better off directing him/her to this web page.
For other political news checkthis weblog
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.
