For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 10, 2003
Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation
Washington, D.C.
9:25 A.M. EDT
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. And, Ed, thank you,
and thank you for the welcome and for allowing me to be here this
morning to see so many old friends in the room, including distinguished
scholars and writers whose work I've admired for years. The Heritage
Foundation sets a very high standard of scholarship and public
advocacy. In my various jobs over the years -- as Congressman,
Secretary of Defense and now Vice President -- I've benefited greatly
from the work done in this building. I want to thank all of you for
what you do for all of us.
All of you are serious observers of public affairs, especially in
matters of national security. And that's why I've come here this
morning to discuss the war on terror, the choices America has made in
that war, and the choices still before us.
For most of this year, the attention of the world has centered on
Iraq. From the final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein last March, to the
removal of his regime, and on up to the present, as we continue to
battle with Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists. Iraq has become
the central front in the war on terror. It was crucial that we
enforced the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Now, having liberated
that country, it is crucial that we keep our word to the Iraqi people,
helping them to build a secure country and a democratic government.
And we will do so. (Applause.)
Our mission in Iraq is a great undertaking and part of a larger
mission that the United States accepted now more than two years ago.
September 11, 2001, changed everything for this country. We came to
recognize our vulnerability to the threats of the new era. We saw the
harm that 19 evil men could do, armed with little more than airline
tickets and box cutters and driven by a philosophy of hatred. We lost
some 3,000 innocent lives that morning, in scarcely two hours' time.
Since 9/11, we've learned much more about what these enemies intend
for us. One member of al Qaeda said 9/11 was the "beginning of the end
of America." And we know to a certainty that terrorists are doing
everything they can to gain even deadlier means of striking us. From
the training manuals we found in the caves of Afghanistan to the
interrogations of terrorists that we've captured, we have learned of
their ambitions to develop or acquire chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons. And if terrorists ever do acquire that capability -- on their
own or with help from a terror regime -- they will use it without the
slightest constraint of reason or morality.
That possibility, the ultimate nightmare, could bring devastation
to our country on a scale we have never experienced. Instead of losing
thousands of lives, we might lose tens of thousands, or even hundreds
of thousands of lives in a single day of war. Remember what we saw on
the morning of 9/11, and knowing the nature of these enemies, we have
as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to government: we must do
everything in our power to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons
of mass destruction.
This great and urgent responsibility has required a shift in
national security policy. The strategy of deterrence, which served us
so well during the decades of the Cold War, will no longer do. Our
terrorist enemy has no country to defend, no assets to destroy in order
to discourage an attack. Strategies of containment will not assure our
security, either. There is no containing terrorists who will commit
suicide for the purposes of mass slaughter. There is also no
containing a terror state that secretly passes along deadly weapons to
a terrorist network. There is only one way to protect ourselves
against catastrophic terrorist violence, and that is to destroy the
terrorists before they can launch further attacks against the United
States.
For many years prior to 9/11, it was the terrorists who were on the
offensive. We treated their repeated attacks against Americans as
isolated incidents and answered, if at all, on an ad hoc basis, and
rarely in a systematic way. There was the attack on the Marine
barracks in Beirut in 1983, killing 241 men; the bombing of the World
Trade Center, in 1993; five more murders when the Saudi National Guard
Training Center in Riyadh was struck in 1995; the killings at Khobar
Towers in 1996; the East Africa Embassy bombings in 1998; and in 2000,
the attack on the USS Cole.
There was a tendency to treat incidents like these as individual
criminal acts to be handled primarily through law enforcement. Ramzi
Yousef, who perpetrated the first attack on the World Trade Center is
the best case in point. The U.S. government tracked him down, arrested
him and got a conviction. After he was sent off to serve a 240 year
sentence, some might have thought, "case closed." But the case was not
closed.
The leads were not successfully followed, the dots were not
adequately connected, the threat was not recognized for what it was.
For al Qaeda, the World Trade Center attack in 1993 was part of a
sustained campaign. Behind that one man, Ramzi Yousef, was a growing
network with operatives inside and outside the United States, waging
war against our country. For us, that war started on 9/11. For them,
it started years ago, when Osama bin Laden declared war on the United
States. In 1996, Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, the mastermind of 9/11 and
the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, first proposed to bin Laden that they use
hijacked airliners to attack targets in the U.S. During this period,
thousands of terrorists were trained at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
Since September 11th, the terrorists have continued their attacks
in Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf and Baghdad.
Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America
requires a new strategy -- not merely to prosecute a series of crimes,
but to conduct a global campaign against the terror network. Our
strategy has several key elements. We've strengthened our defenses
here at home, organizing the government to protect the homeland. But a
good defense is not enough. We are going after the terrorists wherever
they plot and plan. Of those known to be directly involved in
organizing the attacks of 9/11, most are now in custody or confirmed
dead. The leadership of al Qaeda has sustained heavy losses -- they
will sustain more.
We are also dismantling the financial networks that support terror,
a vital step never before taken. The hidden bank accounts, the front
groups, the phony charities are being discovered and the assets seized,
to starve terrorists of the money that makes it possible for them to
operate.
Our government is also working closely with intelligence services
all over the globe, including those of governments not traditionally
considered friends of the United States.
And we are applying the Bush doctrine: Any person or government
that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the
murder of the innocent and will be held to account. (Applause.) The
first to see this doctrine in application were the Taliban, who ruled
Afghanistan by violence, while turning the country into a training camp
for terrorists. With fine allies at our side, we took down the regime
and shut down the al Qaeda camps. Our work there continues --
confronting Taliban and al Qaeda remnants, training a new Afghan army,
and providing security as the new government takes shape. Under
President Karzai's leadership, and with the help of our coalition, the
Afghan people are building a decent and just society -- a nation fully
joined in the war on terror.
In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror. The
United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a murderous
dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and
security. Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden
aggression. He cultivated ties to terror -- hosting the Abu Nidal
organization, supporting terrorists, making payments to the families of
suicide bombers in Israel. He also had an established relationship
with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of
poisons, gases, making conventional bombs. Saddam built, possessed and
used weapons of mass destruction. He refused or evaded all
international demands to account for those weapons.
Twelve years of diplomacy, more than a dozen Security Council
resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights
to enforce the no-fly zones, and even strikes against military targets
in Iraq -- all of these measures were tried to compel Saddam Hussein's
compliance with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of
these measures failed. Last October, the United States Congress voted
overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Last November,
the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in
material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences in
the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When
Saddam Hussein failed even then to comply, our coalition acted to
deliver those serious consequences. In that effort, the American
military acted with speed and precision and skill. Once again, our men
and women in uniform have served with honor, reflecting great credit on
themselves and on the United States of America. (Applause.)
In the post-9/11 era, certain risks are unacceptable. The United
States made our position clear: We could not accept the grave danger
of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies turning weapons of mass
destruction against us or our friends and allies. And, gradually, we
are learning the details of his hidden weapons programs. This work is
being carried out under the direction of Dr. David Kay, a respected
scientist and former U.N. inspector who is leading the weapons search
in Iraq.
Dr. Kay's team faces an enormous task. They have yet to examine
more than a hundred large conventional weapons arsenals -- some of
which cover areas larger than 50 square miles. Finding comparatively
small volumes of extremely deadly materials hidden in these vast
stockpiles will be time consuming and difficult. Yet, Dr. Kay and his
team are making progress, and have compiled an interim report, portions
of which were declassified last week. Let me read to you a couple of
passages from Dr. Kay's testimony to Congress, which deserve closer
attention.
He notes: "Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two, involved
thousands of people, billions of dollars and were elaborately shielded
by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end
of Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Dr. Kay further stated, "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related
program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq
concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in
late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have
come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and
officials concerning information they deliberately withheld, as well as
through physical evidence of equipment and activities that the Iraq
survey group has discovered [that] should have been declared to the
United Nations."
Among the items Dr. Kay and his team have already identified are
the following: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses
within the Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment suitable
for continuing chemical and biological weapons research; a prison
laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological
weapons agents, that Iraqi officials were explicitly ordered not to
declare to the United Nations; reference strains of biological
organisms, concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to
produce biological weapons; new research on BW-applicable agents,
Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on
ricin and aflatoxin, which has not been declared to the United Nations;
documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that would have
been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and
electromagnetic isotope separation; a line of unmanned aerial vehicles,
not fully declared, and an admission that they had been tested out to a
range of 500 kilometers -- 350 kilometers beyond the legal limit
imposed by the U.N. after the Gulf War; plans and advanced design work
for new long-range ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges capable of
striking targets throughout the Middle East, which were prohibited by
the U.N. and which Saddam sought to conceal from the U.N. weapons
inspectors; clandestine attempts between late 1999 and 2002 to obtain
from North Korea technology related to 1,300-kilometer range ballistic
missiles, 300-kilometer range anti-ship cruise missiles and other
prohibited military equipment.
Ladies and gentlemen, each and every one of these finding confirms
a material breach by the former Iraqi regime of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1441. Taken together, they constitute a massive breach of
that unanimously-passed resolution and provide a compelling case for
the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
Even as more evidence is found of Saddam's weapons programs,
critics of our action in Iraq continue to voice other objections. And
the arguments they make are helping to frame the most important debate
of the post-9/11 era.
Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam
Hussein was not imminent. Yet, as the President has said, "Since when
have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely
putting us on notice before they strike?" I would remind the critics
of the fundamental case the President has made since September 11th.
Terrorist enemies of our country hope to strike us with the most lethal
weapons known to man. And it would be reckless in the extreme to rule
out action, and save our worries, until the day they strike. As the
President told Congress earlier this year, if threats from terrorists
and terror states are permitted to fully emerge, "all actions, all
words and all recriminations would come too late." That is the
debate, that is the choice set before the American people. And as
long as George W. Bush is President of the United States, this country
will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies.
(Applause.)
Critics of our national security policy have also argued that to
confront a gathering threat is simply to stir up hostility. In the
case of Saddam Hussein, his hostility to our country long predates
9/11, and America's war on terror. In the case of the al Qaeda
terrorists, their hostility has long been evidenced. And year after
year, the terrorists only grew bolder in the absence of forceful
response from America and other nations. Weakness and drift and
vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks. Strength and resolve
and decisive action defeat attacks before they can arrive on our soil.
Another criticism we hear is that the United States, when its
security is threatened, may not act without unanimous international
consent. Under this view, even in the face of a specific, stated,
agreed upon danger, the mere objection of even one foreign government
would be sufficient to prevent us from acting. This view reflects a
deep confusion about the requirements of our national security. Though
often couched in high-sounding terms of unity and cooperation, it is a
prescription for perpetual disunity and obstructionism. In practice,
it would prevent our own country from acting with friends and allies,
even in the most urgent circumstance. To accept the view that action
by America and our allies can be stopped by the objection of foreign
governments that may not feel threatened, is to confer undue power on
them, while leaving the rest of us powerless to act in our own
defense. Yet we continue to hear this attitude in arguments in our own
country -- so often, and so conveniently, it amounts to a policy of
doing exactly nothing.
In Afghanistan, in Iraq, on every front in the war on terror, the
United States has cooperated with friends and allies, and with others
who recognize the common threat we face. More than 50 countries are
contributing to peace and stability in Iraq today -- including most of
the world's democracies -- and more than 70 are with us in
Afghanistan. The United States is committed to multilateral action
wherever possible. Yet this commitment does not require us to stop
everything, and neglect our own defense, merely on the say-so of a
single foreign government. Ultimately, America must be in charge of
her own national security. (Applause.)
This is the debate before the American people, and it is of more
than academic interest. It comes down to a choice between action that
assures our security and inaction that allows dangers to grow. And we
can see the consequences of these choices in real events. The contrast
is greatest on the ground in Iraq. Had the United States been
constrained by the objections of some, the regime of Saddam Hussein
would still rule Iraq, his statues would still stand, and his sons
would still be running the secret police. Dissidents would still be in
prison, the apparatus of torture and rape would still be in place, and
the mass graves would be undiscovered. We must never forget the kind
of man who ran that country, and the depravity of his regime.
Last month, Bernard Kerik, the former police commissioner of New
York, returned from Iraq after spending four months helping to activate
and stand up a new national police force. Bernie Kerik tells of many
things he saw, including the videos of interrogations in which the
victim is blown apart by a hand grenade. Another video, as he
describes it shows: "Saddam sitting in an office, allowing two Doberman
Pinschers to eat alive a general because he did not trust his loyalty."
Those who declined to support the liberation of Iraq would not deny
the evil of Saddam Hussein's regime. They must concede, however, that
had their own advice been followed, that regime would rule Iraq today.
President Bush declined the course of inaction, and the results are
there for all to see. The torture chambers are empty, the prisons for
children are closed, the murderers of innocents have been exposed, and
their mass graves have been uncovered. The regime is gone, never to
return. And despite difficulties we knew would occur, the Iraqi people
prefer liberty and hope to tyranny and fear. (Applause.)
Our coalition is helping them to build a secure, hopeful and
self-governing nation which will stand as an example of freedom to all
the Middle East. We are rebuilding more than a thousand schools,
supplying and reopening hospitals, rehabilitating power plants, water
and sanitation facilities, bridges and airports. We are training Iraqi
police, border guards and a new army, so that the Iraqi people can
assume full responsibility for their own security. Iraq now has its
own Governing Council, has appointed interim government ministers, and
is moving toward the drafting of a new constitution and free
elections.
The contrast of visions is evident as well throughout the region.
Had we followed the counsel of inaction, the Iraqi regime would still
be a menace to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the Middle
East. Today, because we acted, Iraq stands to be a force for good in
the Middle East.
Comparing both sides of the debate, we can see certain consequences
for the world beyond the Middle East, consequences with direct
implications for our own security. If Saddam Hussein were in power
today there would still be active terror camps in Iraq, the regime
would still be allowing terrorist leaders into the country, and this
ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program
capable of producing deadly agents on short notice. There would be
today, as there was six months ago, the prospect of the Iraqi dictator
providing weapons of mass destruction, or the means to make them, to
terrorists for the purpose of attacking America.
Today we do not face this prospect. There are terrorists in Iraq,
yet there is no dictator to protect them, and we are dealing with them
one by one. Terrorists have gathered in that country and there they
will be defeated. We are fighting this evil in Iraq so we do not have
to fight it on the streets of our own cities. (Applause.)
The current debate over America's national security policy is the
most consequential since the early days of the Cold War and the
emergence of a bipartisan commitment to face the evils of communism.
All of us now look back with respect and gratitude on the great
decisions that set America on the path to victory in the Cold War and
kept us on that path through nine presidencies. I believe that one
day, scholars and historians will look back on our time and pay tribute
to our 43rd President, who has both called upon and exemplified the
courage and perseverance of the American people. (Applause.) In this
period of extraordinary danger, President Bush has made clear America's
purposes in the world, and our determination to overcome the threats to
our liberty and our lives.
Sometimes history presents clear and stark choices. We have come
to such a moment. Those who bear the responsibility for making those
choices for America must understand that while action will always carry
cost, measured in effort and sacrifice, inaction carries heavy costs of
its own. As in the years of the Cold War, much is asked of us and much
rides on our actions. A watching world is depending on the United
States of America. Only America has the might and the will to lead the
world through a time of peril, toward greater security and peace. And
as we've done before, we accept the great mission that history has
given us.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
END 9:50 A.M. EDT
|