SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (21407)2/11/2003 12:07:08 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27666
 
Cal Thomas

URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20030211.shtml

February 11, 2003

Paul Revere's ride (updated)

If Henry Wadsworth Longfellow were writing today, perhaps he might update his classic poem, "Paul Revere's Ride ":

Listen my children and you shall hear,

Of the terrorist threats both far and near.

In the year of our Lord two thousand and three,

Comes a new threat not only by land, but by air and by sea.

The rider Tom Ridge and the president, too,

Warn of coming disaster for me and for you

We'd use lanterns to hang if we just had enough

But the threats are so many we'd run out of stuff.

Now, instead of the lamps Revere said he would hang in Boston's Old North Church in April, 1775, to warn of the approaching British, we use color codes and are warned to be "alert. "

Why is this happening to America? Didn't we recently free a sizable portion of the world from the grip of communism? Are not thousands of our young men buried at Normandy and the names of others carved on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington for paying the highest price and bearing the ultimate burden in the service of other people's freedom and humanity? Have we not transferred trillions of dollars in aid and trade to other nations, and would do so to those in the Middle East if they would live in peace with us and their neighbors?

What other nation rebuilds and reconciles with its enemies like the United States? Radical Islamists claim the United States oppresses Muslims around the world, but this is a clever lie to divert the attention of the oppressed from their real oppressors - political and religious dictators who wish to remain in power and have access to life's goodies, while denying the same to others in order to keep them under their control. They add to their oppression a vision of an angry, vengeful God who needs corrupt human beings to impose his will by force and to murder anyone who can be labeled an "infidel, " which is to say everyone - even Muslims - who do not subscribe to their doctrine of serial assassinations, terrorism and the dehumanizing of women.

Some worry of a "wider war " if we attack Iraq. We are already in that wider war. The question is, will we recognize it now, or will we be forced to realize it later after more of us are killed? If a killer is coming after you, it's better to intercept him before he gets to your door.

This war will not be settled by diplomats or friendly persuasion. It will not be won with promises of aid. The people who hate us have been whipped into frenzy by Arab and Muslim "educators, " editorial writers, cartoonists, political leaders and clergy whose venom is as poisonous to the mind and spirit as the ricin they are producing in clandestine labs to use against us.

How much more must we tolerate before we strike at the evil coming from abroad and root out the dangers among us? No more, says the Bush administration as it contemplates expansion of the USA Patriot Act to allow the government broad new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering and surveillance.

This may the most difficult war we have ever fought, because the front line is less on a foreign battlefield than it is in our will. For a few, no amount of dead Americans will be enough to warrant an all-out war abroad and resolving the problem at home. But for the vast majority, who may soon see - if there are more terrorist attacks - just how serious the threat to our way of life has become, we are going to have to rally ourselves as our ancestors did during the American Revolution.

As Longfellow described those times and the "spirit of alarm " conveyed by Paul Revere: "to every Middlesex village and farm/A cry of defiance, and not of fear. "

Will the people "waken and listen to hear "? We are about to find out in this Code Orange (high condition) age in which we live.

©2003 Tribune Media Services



To: calgal who wrote (21407)2/11/2003 12:07:49 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 27666
 
Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq
17 minutes ago

URL:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20030211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq


By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told a Senate panel Tuesday that what appears to be a new statement from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism.

AP Photo

Reuters
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein




Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

"This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Powell told the Senate Budget Committee.

But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape.

It was Powell's second appearance before the Senate since his presentation to the U.N. Security Council last week. At that time, he detailed his indictment of Iraq as a deceptive stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction.

Lawmakers have praised Powell's U.N. performance, but many Democrats remain skeptical about whether war is necessary, particularly if key U.S. allies remain opposed.

The split between the United States and its allies widened when France, Germany and Belgium jointly vetoed on Monday a U.S.-backed measure to authorize NATO (news - web sites) to make plans to protect Turkey if Iraq attacks it. Russia then joined France and Germany in demanding strengthened weapons inspections.

Responding to concerns of Sen. Ernest Hollings (news, bio, voting record), D-S.C., that the United States was putting its international alliances in jeopardy over Iraq, Powell said "we're not breaking up the alliance."

Powell noted that the U.N. resolution demanding that Iraq disarm was approved unanimously by the Security Council and said it is the United Nations (news - web sites)' responsibility to enforce the resolution.

"Who's breaking up the alliance? Not the United States," Powell said. "The alliance is breaking itself up because it will not meet its responsibilities."

Powell noted that while "much is being said about disagreement in NATO," that 16 members — including the United States and Turkey — back the U.S. position, while three — France, Germany and Russia — oppose it.

"I think this is time for the alliance to say to the fellow alliance member, `We agree with you and if you are concerned, we are concerned.' That's what alliances are all about and I hope NATO will be doing the right thing with respect to Turkey within the next 24 hours," he said.

Powell said the United States is prepared to work with the 14 other nations to give Turkey the helps it needs if it cannot win formal NATO support.

Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla, said of France "I'm amazed at their presumption that they are controlling the (NATO) alliance, but they are not a part of the military alliance."

France's stand on Turkey could signal its steadfast opposition or even a threatened veto to a U.S.-backed resolution at the United Nations that would authorize force to disarm Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) from power.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Tuesday there was still a reasonable expectation that President Bush (news - web sites) could persuade the Security Council to adopt a new resolution.

"At the end of the day, the president would like to believe the United Nations will be relevant," he told reporters.


Latest news:
• Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq
AP - 17 minutes ago
• U.N. Inspectors Visit Iraq Missile Plant
AP - Tue Feb 11, 7:59 AM ET
• Iraq Crisis Sharply Divides U.N. Council
AP - Tue Feb 11, 3:40 AM ET
Special Coverage




In Brussels Tuesday, NATO strove to surmount the standoff — one of the worst crises in its 53-year history. A second emergency meeting of the alliance's decision making North Atlantic Council was postponed for five hours while diplomats held "intensive informal negotiations" to resolve the deadlock, said a NATO official speaking on condition of anonymity.

In Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors paid a surprise visit to a Baghdad missile plant Tuesday as international experts met behind closed doors in New York to assess whether Iraq's short-range missiles can fly farther than permitted under U.N. edicts.

Bush continued his rhetorical assault against Saddam after meeting at the White House on Monday with a solid supporter, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia.

Bush accused Saddam of "trying to stall for time" by offering last-minute concessions to U.N. weapons inspectors. "We're not playing hide-and-seek," Bush said. "That's what he wants to continue to play. Saddam has got to disarm. If he doesn't, we'll disarm him."

Escalating his assault, Bush said the Iraqi people had been tortured and brutalized under Saddam. "He's a brutal dictator," Bush said.

At the U.N. Security Council, the United States began consultations with other countries on a new resolution designed to strengthen Bush's hand if he should decide to go to war. He also is reserving the option of going to war outside the United Nations, with a coalition of supporting nations.

Bush said France was a longtime friend of the United States, but he said its position was shortsighted. "I hope they'll reconsider," he said.

"Upset is not the proper word," Bush said when reporters asked for his views on France's diplomacy. He went on to register his disappointment with President Jacques Chirac, who wants to extend inspections and seek a peaceful resolution with Saddam



To: calgal who wrote (21407)2/11/2003 12:08:04 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27666
 
Powell: New Bin Laden Statement Confirms Iraq Link




URL:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78232,00.html


Tuesday, February 11, 2003

WASHINGTON — Usama bin Laden says he "is in partnership with Iraq" in a new statement that will be aired on Arab television Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate panel.





Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

However, Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape.

The statement, Powell said, shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda terrorists.

"This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Powell told the Senate Budget Committee.

It was Powell's second appearance before the Senate since his presentation to the U.N. Security Council last week. At that time, he detailed his indictment of Iraq as a deceptive stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction.

Lawmakers have praised Powell's U.N. performance, but many Democrats remain skeptical about whether war is necessary, particularly if key U.S. allies remain opposed.

The split between the United States and its allies widened when France, Germany and Belgium jointly vetoed on Monday a U.S.-backed measure to authorize NATO to make plans to protect Turkey if Iraq attacks it. Russia then joined France and Germany in demanding strengthened weapons inspections.

Powell noted that while "much is being said about disagreement in NATO," that 16 members — including the United States and Turkey — back the U.S. position, while three — France, Germany and Russia — oppose it.

"I think this is time for the alliance to say to the fellow alliance member, `We agree with you and if you are concerned, we are concerned.' That's what alliances are all about and I hope NATO will be doing the right thing with respect to Turkey within the next 24 hours," he said.

Powell said the United States is prepared to work with the 14 other nations to give Turkey the helps it needs if it cannot win formal NATO support.

Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla, said of France "I'm amazed at their presumption that they are controlling the (NATO) alliance, but they are not a part of the military alliance."

France's stand on Turkey could signal its steadfast opposition or even a threatened veto to a U.S.-backed resolution at the United Nations that would authorize force to disarm Iraq and remove President Saddam Hussein from power.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday there was still a reasonable expectation that Bush could persuade the Security Council to adopt a new resolution.

"At the end of the day, the president would like to believe the United Nations will be relevant," he told reporters.

In Brussels Tuesday, NATO strove to surmount the standoff — one of the worst crises in its 53-year history. A second emergency meeting of the alliance's decision making North Atlantic Council was postponed for five hours while diplomats held "intensive informal negotiations" to resolve the deadlock, said a NATO official speaking on condition of anonymity.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., lined up with the Bush administration in saying he was deeply troubled by the NATO allies' move. Lieberman, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said "it's time to tone down the rhetoric and stop shouting at each other."

In Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors paid a surprise visit to a Baghdad missile plant Tuesday as international experts met behind closed doors in New York to assess whether Iraq's short-range missiles can fly farther than permitted under U.N. edicts.

Bush continued his rhetorical assault against Saddam after meeting at the White House on Monday with a solid supporter, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia.

Bush accused Saddam of "trying to stall for time" by offering last-minute concessions to U.N. weapons inspectors. "We're not playing hide-and-seek," Bush said. "That's what he wants to continue to play. Saddam has got to disarm. If he doesn't, we'll disarm him."

Escalating his assault, Bush said the Iraqi people had been tortured and brutalized under Saddam. "He's a brutal dictator," Bush said.

At the U.N. Security Council, the United States began consultations with other countries on a new resolution designed to strengthen Bush's hand if he should decide to go to war. He also is reserving the option of going to war outside the United Nations, with a coalition of supporting nations.

"Australia does not believe all of the heavy lifting should be done by the United States and the United Kingdom alone," Howard said after meeting with Powell on Monday. Bush said he considered Australia to be part of his "coalition of the willing."

Bush also said it was up to Howard to define Australia's role. "What that means is up to John," he said.

Bush said France was a longtime friend of the United States, but he said its position was shortsighted. "I hope they'll reconsider," he said.

"Upset is not the proper word," Bush said when reporters asked for his views on France's diplomacy. He went on to register his disappointment with President Jacques Chirac, who wants to extend inspections and seek a peaceful resolution with Saddam.

"I understand why people don't like to commit the military to action," Bush said. "I can understand that. I'm the person in this country that hugs the mothers and the widows if their son or husband dies. I know people would like to avoid armed conflict, and so would I.

"But the risks of doing nothing far outweigh the risks of whatever it takes to disarm Saddam Hussein," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.