A Clear Choice
John Kerry "speaks as if only those who openly oppose
America's objectives have a chance of earning his
respect."
BY DICK CHENEY
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
(Editor's note: Vice President Cheney delivered this speech yesterday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif.)
Last fall, some people with short memories were asking why on earth California would want to put an actor in the governor's office. The question brought to mind images of 1966, and all the great events that were set in motion by the election of Gov. Ronald Reagan. From his first day in Sacramento to his last day in Washington, Ronald Reagan showed a certain kind of leadership. He had confidence in himself, and even deeper confidence in the United States and our place among nations. His principles were the product of a good heart, a sturdy Midwestern character, and years of disciplined preparation for the work that history gave him. He had a basic awareness of good and evil that made him a champion of human freedom, and the greatest foe of the greatest tyranny of his time. <font size=4>The Cold War ended as it did, not by chance, not by some inevitable progression of events: It ended because Ronald Reagan was president of the United States.
After the fall of Soviet communism, some observers confidently assumed that America would never again face such determined enemies, or an aggressive ideology, or the prospect of catastrophic violence. But standing here in 2004, we can see clearly how a new enemy was organizing and gathering strength over a period of years. And the struggle we are in today, against terrorist enemies intending violence on a massive scale, requires the same qualities of leadership that saw our nation to victory in the Cold War. We must build and maintain military strength capable of operating in different theaters of action with decisive force. We must not only have that power, but be willing to use it when required to defend our freedom and our security.
We must support those around the world who are taking risks to advance freedom, justice, and democracy, just as President Reagan did. American policy must be clear and consistent in its purposes. And American leaders--above all, the commander in chief--must be confident in our nation's cause, and unwavering until the danger to our people is fully and finally removed.
The attacks of September 11, 2001, signaled the arrival of an entirely different era. We suffered massive civilian casualties on our own soil. We awakened to dangers even more lethal--the possibility that terrorists could gain chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons from outlaw regimes, and turn those weapons against the United States and our friends. We came to understand that for all the destruction and grief we saw that day, September 11 gave only the merest glimpse of the threat that international terrorism poses to this and other nations. If terrorists ever do acquire weapons of mass destruction--on their own or with help from a terror regime--they will use those weapons without the slightest constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives in a single day of horror. Remembering 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 protect our people from terrorist attack, and to keep terrorists from ever acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
This great and urgent responsibility has required a shift in national security policy. For many years prior to 9/11, we treated terror attacks against Americans as isolated incidents, and answered--if at all--on an ad hoc basis, and never in a systematic way. Even after an attack inside our own country--the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center, in New York--there was a tendency to treat terrorist incidents as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily through law enforcement. The man who perpetrated that attack in New York was tracked down, arrested, convicted and sent off to serve a 240-year sentence. Yet behind that one man 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 before. After the World Trade Center attack in 1993
came the murders at the Saudi Arabia National Guard
Training Center in Riyadh, in 1995; the simultaneous
bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in
1998; the attack on the USS Cole, in 2000. In 1996, Khalid
Shaykh Muhammad--the mastermind of 9/11--first proposed to
Osama 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.
And we have seen the work of terrorists in many attacks
since 9/11--in Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Mombasa,
Bali, Jakarta, Najaf, Baghdad and, most recently, Madrid.
Against this kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America requires a new strategy--not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to fight and win a global campaign against the terror network. Our strategy has several key elements. We have strengthened our defenses here at home, organizing the government to protect the homeland. But a good defense is not enough. The terrorist enemy holds no territory, defends no population, is unconstrained by rules of warfare, and respects no law of morality. Such an enemy cannot be deterred, contained, appeased or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed--and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the business at hand.
We are dismantling the financial networks that have funded terror; we are going after the terrorists themselves 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, and they will sustain more.
America is also working closely with intelligence services all over the globe. The best intelligence is necessary--not just to win the war on terror, but also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So we have enhanced our intelligence capabilities, in order to trace dangerous weapons activity. We have organized a proliferation security initiative, to interdict lethal materials and technologies in transit. We are aggressively pursuing another dangerous source of proliferation: black-market operatives who sell equipment and expertise related to weapons of mass destruction. The world recently learned of the network led by A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Khan and his associates sold nuclear technology and know-how to outlaw regimes around the world, including Iran and North Korea. Thanks to the tireless work of intelligence officers from the United States, the U.K., Pakistan, and other nations, the Khan network is now being dismantled piece by piece.
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.
The first to see this application were the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan by violence while turning that country into a training camp for terrorists. America and our coalition took down the regime in a matter of weeks because of our superior technology, the unmatched skill of our armed forces, and, above all, because we came not as conquerors but as liberators. The Taliban are gone from the scene. The terrorist camps are closed. And our coalition's work there continues--confronting terrorist remnants, training a new Afghan army, and providing security as the new government takes shape. Under President Karzai's leadership, and with a new constitution, the Afghan people are reclaiming their own country and building a nation that is secure, independent, and free.
<font size=5>
In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on
terror. Before using force, we tried every possible option
to address the threat from Saddam Hussein. Despite 12
years of diplomacy, more than a dozen U.N. 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--Saddam Hussein
refused to comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War
cease-fire. All of these measures failed. In October of
2002, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to
authorize the use of force in Iraq. The next month, 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 failed
even then to comply, President Bush gave an ultimatum to
the dictator--to leave Iraq or be forcibly removed from
power.
<font size=4>
That ultimatum came one year ago today--twelve months in which Saddam went from palace, to bunker, to spider hole, to jail. A year ago, he was the all-powerful dictator of Iraq, controlling the lives and the future of almost 25 million people. Today, the people of Iraq know that the dictator and his sons will never torment them again. And we can be certain that they will never again threaten Iraq's neighbors or the United States of America.
From the beginning, America has sought--and received--
international support for our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In the war on terror, we will always seek
cooperation from our allies around the world. But as the
president has made very clear, there is a difference
between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting
to the objections of a few. The United States will never
seek a permission slip to defend the security of our
country.
We still have work to do in Iraq, and we will see it through. Our forces are conducting swift, precision raids against the terrorists and regime holdouts who still remain. The thugs and assassins in Iraq are desperately trying to shake our will. Just this morning, they conducted a murderous attack on a hotel in Baghdad. Their goal is to prevent the rise of a democracy--but they will fail. Just last week, the Iraqi Governing Council approved a new fundamental law, an essential step toward building a free constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East. This great work is part of a forward strategy of freedom that we are pursuing throughout the greater Middle East. By helping nations to build the institutions of freedom, and turning the energies of men and women away from violence, we not only make that region more peaceful, we add to the security of our own region.
The recent bombing in Spain may well be evidence of how
fearful the terrorists are of a free and democratic Iraq.
But if the murderers of Madrid intended to undermine the
transition to democracy in Iraq, they will ultimately
fail. Our determination is unshakable. We will stand with
the people of Iraq as they build a government based on
democracy, tolerance and freedom.
Our steady course has not escaped the attention of the
leaders in other countries. Three months ago, after
initiating talks with America and Britain, and five days
after the capture of Saddam Hussein, the leader of Libya
voluntarily committed to disclose and dismantle all of his
weapons of mass destruction programs. As we meet today,
the dismantling of those programs is underway. I do not
believe that Col. Gadhafi just happened to make this very
wise decision after many years of pursuing secretive,
intensive efforts to develop the world's most dangerous
weapons. He was responding to the new realities of the
world. Leaders elsewhere are learning that weapons of mass
destruction do not bring influence, or prestige, or
security--they only invite isolation, and carry other
costs. In the post-9/11 world, the United States and our
allies will not live at the mercy of terrorists or regimes
that could arm them with chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. By whatever means are necessary--whether
diplomatic or military--we will act to protect the lives
and security of the American people.
These past three years, as our country experienced war and
national emergency, I have watched our commander in chief
make the decisions and set the strategy. I have seen a man
who is calm and deliberate--comfortable with
responsibility--consistent in his objectives and resolute
in his actions. These times have tested the character of
our nation, and they have tested the character of our
nation's leader. When he makes a commitment, there is no
doubt he will follow through. As a result, America's
friends know they can trust--and America's enemies know
they can fear--the decisive leadership of President George
W. Bush.
The president's conduct in leading America through a time
of unprecedented danger--his ability to make decisions and
stand by them--is a measure that must be applied to the
candidate who now opposes him in the election of 2004.
In one of Sen. Kerry's recent observations about foreign
policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have
gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners
he's been spending time with. Sen. Kerry said that he has
met with foreign leaders, and I quote, "who can't go out
and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and
say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy,
we need a new policy,' things like that."
A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Sen. Kerry
directly who these foreign leaders are. Sen. Kerry
said, "That's none of your business." But it is our
business when a candidate for president claims the
political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very
least, we have a right to know what he is saying to
foreign leaders that makes them so supportive of his
candidacy. American voters are the ones charged with
determining the outcome of this election--not unnamed
foreign leaders.
Sen. Kerry's voting record on national security raises
some important questions all by itself. Let's begin with
the matter of how Iraq and Saddam Hussein should have been
dealt with. Sen. Kerry was in the minority of senators who
voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time,
he expressed the view that our international coalition
consisted of "shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a
burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he
recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently.
He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be
followed.
Six years after the Gulf War, in 1997, Saddam Hussein was
still defying the terms of the cease-fire. And as
President Bill Clinton considered military action against
Iraq, he found a true believer in John Kerry. The senator
from Massachusetts said, "Should the resolve of our allies
wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take
action." He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not
held to account for violation of U.N. resolutions, some
future conflict would have " greater consequence." In
1998, Sen. Kerry indicated his support for regime change,
with ground troops if necessary. And, of course, when
Congress voted in October of 2002, Sen. Kerry voted to
authorize military action if Saddam refused to comply with
U.N. demands.
A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Sen.
Kerry's record, would assume that Sen. Kerry supported
military action against Saddam Hussein. The senator
himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on
TV if he was, "one of the antiwar candidates." He
replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only
to "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force.
Even if we set aside these inconsistencies and changing
rationales, at least this much is clear: Had the decision
belonged to Sen. Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in
power, today, in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would
almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.
<font size=5>
Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international
cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a "golden age of
American diplomacy." He is fond of mentioning that some
countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet
of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies
and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with
open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain,
Poland and more than 20 other nations have contributed and
sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry
calls these countries, quote, "window dressing." They are,
in his words, "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed."
Many questions come to mind, but the first is this: How
would Sen. Kerry describe Great Britain--coerced, or
bribed? Or Italy--which recently lost 19 citizens, killed
by terrorists in Najaf--was Italy's contribution just
window dressing? If such dismissive terms are the
vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Sen. Kerry
promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care
to join any future coalition. He speaks as if only those
who openly oppose America's objectives have a chance of
earning his respect. Sen. Kerry's characterization of our
good allies is ungrateful to nations that have withstood
danger, hardship, and insult for standing with America in
the cause of freedom.
<font size=4>
Sen. Kerry has also had a few things to say about support for our troops now on the ground in Iraq. Among other criticisms, he has asserted that those troops are not receiving the materiel support they need. Just this morning, he again gave the example of body armor, which he said our administration failed to supply. May I remind the senator that last November, at the president's request, Congress passed an $87 billion supplemental appropriation. This legislation was essential to our ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan--providing funding for body armor and other vital equipment; hazard pay; health benefits; ammunition; fuel, and spare parts for our military. The legislation passed overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 87-12.
Sen. Kerry voted "no." I note that yesterday, attempting
to clarify the matter, Sen. Kerry said, quote, "I actually
did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
It's a true fact.
On national security, the senator has shown at least one measure of consistency. Over the years, he has repeatedly voted against weapons systems for the military. He voted against the Apache helicopter, against the Tomahawk cruise missile, against even the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He has also been a reliable vote against military pay increases--opposing them no fewer than 12 times.
Many of these very weapons systems have been used by our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are proving to be valuable assets in the war on terror. In his defense, of course, Sen. Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. Recently he said, and I quote, "I don't want to use that terminology." In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. As we have seen, however, that approach was tried before, and proved entirely inadequate to protecting the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they are at war with us--and are comfortable using that terminology.
I leave it for Sen. Kerry to explain, or explain away, his
votes and his statements about the war on terror, our
cause in Iraq, the allies who serve with us and the needs
of our military. Whatever the explanation, whatever
nuances he might fault us for neglecting, it is not an
impressive record for someone who aspires to become
commander in chief in this time of testing for our
country. In his years in Washington, Sen. Kerry has been
one vote of a hundred in the United States Senate--and
fortunately on matters of national security, he was very
often in the minority. But the presidency is an entirely
different proposition. The president always casts the
deciding vote. And the senator from Massachusetts has
given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude
he brings to bear on vital issues of national security.
The American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004, at least as clear as any since the election of 1984. In more than three years as president, George W. Bush has built a national security record of his own. America has come to know the president after one of the worst days in our history. He saw America through tragedy. He has kept the nation's enemies in desperate flight, and under his leadership, our country has once again led the armies of liberation, freeing 50 million souls from tyranny, and making our nation and the world more secure.
All Americans, regardless of political party, can be proud of what our nation has achieved in this historic time, when so many depended on us, and all the world was watching. And I have been very proud to work with a president who--like other presidents we have known--has shown, in his own conduct, the optimism, and strength, and decency of the great nation he serves.
<font size=3>
Mr. Cheney is vice president of the United States.
opinionjournal.com |
