Iranian Alert -- March 4, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

1 posted on 03/04/2004 12:12:06 AM PST by DoctorZIn

To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...

Join Us At Today's Iranian Alert Thread – The Most Underreported Story Of The Year!

"If you want on or off this Iran ping list, Freepmail DoctorZin”

2 posted on 03/04/2004 12:14:30 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Nukes `R' Us

New York Times - By Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz
Mar 4, 2004

WASHINGTON - America's relations with Pakistan and several other Asian countries have been rocked by the discovery of the vast smuggling network run by the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, one American ally at the heart of the scandal, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, seems to be escaping punishment despite its role as the key transfer point in Dr. Khan's atomic bazaar.

Dubai's involvement is no surprise to those who follow the murky world of nuclear technology sales. For the last two decades it, along with other points in the emirates, has been the main hub through which traffickers have routed their illegal commerce to hide their trails. Yet the United States, which has depended on the emirates as a pillar of relative stability in the Middle East and, since 1991, as a host to American troops, has done little to pressure it to crack down on illicit arms trade.

In the wake of the Khan scandal, Washington has at least acknowledged the problem. President Bush singled out SMB Computers, a Dubai company run by B. S. A. Tahir, a Sri Lankan businessman living in Malaysia, as a "front for the proliferation activities of the A. Q. Khan network." According to the White House, Mr. Tahir arranged for components of high-speed gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium so it can be used in nuclear weapons, to be manufactured in Malaysia, shipped to Dubai and then sent on to Libya. (In its investigation, the Malaysian government implicated another Dubai company, Gulf Technical Industries.)

American authorities say that Mr. Tahir also bought centrifuge parts in Europe that were sent to Libya via Dubai. In return for millions of dollars paid to Dr. Khan, Libya's leader, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, was to get enough centrifuges to make about 10 nuclear weapons a year.

Why ship through Dubai? Because it may be the easiest place in the world to mask the real destination of cargo. Consider how the Malaysian government is making the case for the innocence of its manufacturing company. "No document was traced that proved" the company "delivered or exported the said components to Libya," according to the country's inspector general of police. The real destination, he said, "was outside the knowledge" of the producer. One can be certain that if the Khan ring's European suppliers are ever tracked down, they will offer a similar explanation.

Dubai provides companies and governments a vital asset: automatic deniability. Its customs agency even brags that its policy on re-exporting "enables traders to transit their shipments through Dubai without any hassles." Next to Dubai's main port is the Jebel Ali free trade zone, a haven for freewheeling international companies. Our organization has has documented 264 firms from Iran and 44 from rogue regimes like Syria and North Korea.

With the laxity of the emirates' laws, there is simply no way to know how many weapon components have passed through. But consider some incidents that our organization has tallied — based on shipping records, government investigations, court documents, intelligence reports and other sources — over the last 20 years.

• In 1982, a German exporter and former Nazi, Alfred Hempel, sent 70 tons of heavy water, a component for nuclear reactors, from Sinochem in China to Dubai. The shipping labels were then changed to mask the transaction, and 60 tons of the heavy water were forwarded to India, where it enabled the government to use its energy-producing reactors to create plutonium for its atomic weapons program. The other 10 tons went to Argentina, which was interested in atomic weapons at the time.

• In 1983, Mr. Hempel sent 15 tons of heavy water from Norway's Norsk Hydro, and 6.7 tons from Techsnabexport in the Soviet Union, through the emirates to India.

• In 1985 and 1986, Mr. Hempel sent 12 more tons of Soviet heavy water to India that were used to start the Dhruva reactor, devoted to making plutonium for atomic bombs. (The details of these transactions come from German and Norwegian government audits, but Mr. Hempel, who died in 1989, was never convicted of a crime.)

• In 1990, a Greek intermediary offered Iraq an atomic-bomb design (probably of Chinese origin) from Dr. Khan in Pakistan, with a guarantee that "any requirements or materials" could be bought from Western countries and routed through Dubai. Iraq has said it rejected the offer and suspected it of being part of a sting operation, although a more likely explanation is that the impending 1991 Persian Gulf war precluded the deal.

• In 1994 and 1995, two containers of gas centrifuge parts from Dr. Khan's labs were shipped through Dubai to Iran for about $3 million worth of U.A.E. currency.

• In 1996, Guide Oil of Dubai ordered American-made impregnated alumina, which can be used for making nerve gas ingredients, and tried to pass it along to an Iranian purchasing agent, Drush Jamshidnezhad, in violation of American export control laws. A sample was delivered before the deal foundered when middlemen were caught by American officials in a sting operation.

• Also in 1996, the German government listed six firms in Dubai as front companies for Iranian efforts to import arms and nuclear technology.

• From 1998 to 2001, several consignments of rocket fuel ingredients shipped to Dubai by an Indian company, NEC Engineers, were sent to Iraq, in violation of Indian law and the United Nations embargo on Saddam Hussein's regime.

• In 2003, over Washington's protests, emirates customs officials allowed 66 American high-speed electrical switches, which are ideal for detonating nuclear weapons, to be sent to a Pakistani businessman with longstanding ties to the Pakistani military. American prosecutors have indicted an Israeli, Asher Karni, for allegedly exporting the switches through Giza Technologies in New Jersey to South Africa and then to Dubai.

The pattern is terrifying, and those examples are most likely a small part of the overall picture. So, will the Bush administration, with its focus on fighting terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, start cracking down on the emirates? The first signs are not promising. President Bush has warned of interrogations in Pakistan and actions against the factory in Malaysia that supplied Dr. Khan, but has given no hint of any penalties against Dubai. Lockheed Martin is about to send 80 F-16 fighters to the emirates, and a missile-defense deal may be in the offing.

The lesson of the Khan affair is that instead of focusing solely on "rogue regimes," we have to shut down the companies and individuals that supply them with illicit arms and technology. The United States and its allies have to put pressure on the countries that allow the trade to flourish — even if it means withholding aid and refusing arms sales. Unless Dubai cleans up its act, it should be treated like the smugglers it harbors.

Gary Milhollin is director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Kelly Motz is associate director.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/04/opinion/04MILH.html

3 posted on 03/04/2004 12:18:02 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Why do they have this meeting?
http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=12&date1=2004-03-04

"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan : March 04 (PNS) - The joint Iran-Pakistan Ministerial Commission will be held here on March 4 (Thursday).

According to Ministry of Finance, the Iranian Minister of Transport and Joint Chairman of the Joint Pakistan-Iran Ministerial Commission, Ahmad Khurram is arriving here to lead The Iranian delegation to the Joint Ministerial Commission to be held here on Thursday.

The Pakistani side led by Minister for Finance, Shaukat Aziz and the meeting is being held in advance of Iranian Vice President, Mohammad Reza Aref's visit to Islamabad. A 16-member Iranian advance team has already arrived in Islamabad which called on the Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz here on Wednesday morning."

Perhaps the answer is here:
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=030304103909

4 posted on 03/04/2004 12:34:21 AM PST by AdmSmith

Sorry here is the text:

Brussels, Mar. 4 (NNN): The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has asked Pakistan to provide some nuclear-related samples to verify Iran?s claim that traces of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) found at the Iranian nuclear installations came with the nuclear equipment imported from Pakistan, according to reports here.

During his sojourn in Brussels, the IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei confirmed on Tuesday that the UN nuclear watchdog?s fresh official contacted with Islamabad urging Pakistan to provide what he described as "particle samples" enabling the IAEA to verify the Iranian explanation that the traces of highly enriched uranium spotted at nuclear installations of Iran were just contamination caused by nuclear imports from Pakistan.

"It is really important for us to get particle samples from Pakistan", ElBaradei said, "This really is the most important outstanding issue still in Iran...which really raises the question of whether these are just contamination through imports or a question of undeclared nuclear material."

The traces of weapon grade highly enriched uranium were found by the IAEA inspectors at the Kalaye Electric Company near Tehran and another Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz. Iran acknowledged that traces of highly enriched uranium had been found at its nuclear facilities, but contended that the source was contaminated equipment purchased from "another country".

ElBaradei?s statement indicates that Iranian leaders in their explanation now have told the UN agency that the equipment contaminated with weapon grade highly enriched uranium was supplied by Pakistan.

In response to a question ElBaradei, said, "The UN agency has urged Islamabad to provide particle samples to verify Iran?s explanation that traces of enriched uranium found at sites in the country came from equipment imported from Pakistan".

It is worth mentioning here that Islamabad is under no legal obligation to provide ?nuclear particle samples? as requested by the IAEA as Pakistan has not signed/ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pakistan is also not subjected to comprehensive safeguards. The IAEA, however, hopes that Pakistan would send the required particle samples to Vienna soon.

ElBaradei came to Brussels on a short visit to attend a European Parliament Energy conference.

Speaking to reporters accredited at the European Union, he said that Iran was cooperating better with global Non-Proliferation efforts and the IAEA was confident that it would make good on a pledge to suspend uranium enrichment activities. He praised Iran?s better co-operation with global Non-Proliferation efforts as a "sea change".

He gave full credit to Britain, France and Germany for persuading Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. "The Europeans try to cut this vicious circle by saying if you can build confidence over time we are ready to review our relations," ElBaradei said.

Home About Us Jobs Comments Contact Us Advertise Terms of Service

5 posted on 03/04/2004 12:35:32 AM PST by AdmSmith

To: DoctorZIn; McGavin999; freedom44; nuconvert; Eala; AdmSmith; dixiechick2000; onyx; Pro-Bush; ...

Osama's Vote

By Robert Spencer
FrontPage Magazine
March 4, 2004

When Abraham Lincoln received complaints about the hard-drinking, cigar-smoking General Grant, he responded: “I can’t spare this man: he fights.” That could be the last word on George W. Bush in 2004.

There are many things that the President has said and done that I don’t like. But at least he has some awareness of what’s at stake in the war on terror. Since global jihadists want to destroy republican government and the secular societies of the West, anti-terror efforts should enjoy bipartisan support. But instead, they’ve become a political football.

In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, John Kerry declared: “We have a president who has developed and exalted a strategy of war — unilateral, preemptive and, in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and to the safety and prosperity of our own society. Simply put, the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history. . . . The Bush administration should swallow its pride and reverse course.”

Reverse course? What that might mean for the war on terror was demonstrated on February 27 in the Philippines, when the Muslim terror group Abu Sayyaf bombed a ferry boat, killing as many as 134 people. Abu Sayyaf may have picked that day for the bombing because it was the day that two members of the group, including its leader’s brother, were sentenced to life in prison for the 2000 kidnapping of an American, Jeffrey Schilling. Schilling was held for eight months by Abu Sayyaf, often in body chains, and was tortured.

Remember that kidnapping? No? You’re in good company. But Abu Sayyaf has kidnapped and even killed other Americans in the Philippines as well. None of these incidents ever made much of an impression stateside. Before 9/11, Americans tended to slough off overseas terrorist attacks on Americans — and even on our soldiers, sailors and Marines. Such attacks were merely passing outrages somewhere out there beyond our borders. When Bill Clinton noted them at all, he treated them as criminal matters, to be dealt with by law enforcement officials. Aside from a few cruise missiles here and there, this amounted to very little. And this indifference allowed our enemy to thrive and grow.

It was the Bush Administration that recognized that we are in a war, and began to fight. As part of a global network of Al-Qaeda affiliates and allies, Abu Sayyaf knows that it is one of the ultimate targets.

No doubt, therefore, the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in Mindanao are wearing Kerry buttons now — as are the Iranian mullahs. About Iran’s recent sham elections, Bush said: “I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime’s efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people’s desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people’s aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny.”

Kerry? He made no statement. In fact, shortly before the Iranian election his campaign sent an email to Iran’s Mehr News Agency which was trumpeted by the Tehran Times as evidence that the Democratic front-runner would, as President, work with the hardline Islamic regime that has trampled upon human rights in Iran since 1979. The email stated that Kerry “believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.”

Kerry’s campaign said that they didn’t know how this email message got to Mehr, but by then the damage was done. The mullahs knew what Kerry meant by “collaboration with other countries.” The Iranian Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who is at odds with the Iranian regime, told Insight magazine that the current Iranian leaders “fear President Bush.” Bush’s expressions of support for Iranian pro-democracy groups “have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they’ll be gone. That’s why they want to see Kerry elected.”

With the war on terror slipping steadily in the polls as an important issue to voters, that’s something to think about. When John Kerry says that he wants to reverse course, he gives heart to the forces of international jihad that are bent on destroying America. That’s why we may not be able to spare George W. Bush, for all his faults. He fights.

*
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery Publishing), and Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World’s Fastest Growing Faith

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12437

6 posted on 03/04/2004 2:08:19 AM PST by F14 Pilot

Check out my NEW thread:

Bush draws a crowd
[USC Daily Trojan covers pro-Bush Iranian-American/Free Republic rally]
www.DaliyTrojan.com ^ | March 4, 2004 | SHRADDHA JAISWALI
Posted on 03/04/2004 5:32:13 AM PST by RonDog

Bush draws a crowd

President Bush spoke at the Shrine Auditorium Wednesday. More than 100 showed up for the event.

Elizabeth Leitzell | Daily Trojan

Mixed Emotion. The Iranian American Republicans were among the demonstrators who welcomed President Bush to the Shrine Auditorium Wednesday afternoon; they said they support him because he opposes terrorism in Iran.

By SHRADDHA JAISWALI
Staff writer

President George W. Bush's visit to Southern California on Wednesday was marked by demonstrations from more than 130 supporters and opponents who packed onto the four corners of Jefferson Boulevard and Shrine Place in the early evening.
The demonstrators, both for and against the president, waved signs and shouted slogans at the drivers passing the Shrine Auditorium where Bush was scheduled to speak at 5:35 p.m.
With the clock ticking down to the November presidential election, Bush planned a three-day visit to California in hopes of raising funds for his re-election campaign.
The anti-Bush corner was home to about 80 people of all ages waving signs reading everything from a general "Stop Bush" to the more specific "End Occupation in Iraq" and "Immigrant Rights."
Many of the anti-Bush signs were provided by the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism organization, but they were joined by groups such as Code Pink, The Socialist Organization and Out Against War as well as by individuals simply wanting to be heard.
Those gathered at the corner shouting against Bush's policies felt it was necessary to protest even at a fundraising event to open the eyes of Californians.
"I hope to call attention to the fact that other people who think he should not be president will know they are not alone," said Eda Hallinan, a member of the women's peace group Code Pink.
"Bush is probably the worst president this country has ever had," she said. "I think that we are so much worse off now than when he first took office, in terms of the economy and our own security."
Along with the sea of anti-Bush posters, the protesters chanted their messages from a megaphone with sayings such as, "George Bush — we know you — your daddy was a killer too," and "Hands off Haiti."
But despite the loud anti-Bush sentiments, Bush supporters were not deterred from standing their ground. The largest group of Bush advocates at the four corners was a group of Iranians waving flags and shouting praises of the president's international policies.
"We're here to support President Bush because he's for democracy, not only in Iran, but around the world," said 59-year-old Reza Ershadi.
Fellow conservatives praised the Iranian effort to support Bush saying that they were dedicated and knew that Bush could help them.
"These guys have been here since 3 p.m.," said Ron Smith [aka RonDog] pointing to the Iranians. "Think about it, they've got family in Iran. They've got family right now in a brutal regime, and they're saying, 'well we appreciate what you did in Iraq, how about coming over here and helping us out in Iran...'"
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

7 posted on 03/04/2004 6:31:25 AM PST by RonDog

Great to hear.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks for going.

8 posted on 03/04/2004 7:14:42 AM PST by nuconvert (CAUTION: I'm an acquaintance of someone labelled :"an obstinate supporter of dangerous fantasies")

To: DoctorZIn; All

Here is Congressman Robert Andrews' complete address:

IRAN -- (House of Representatives - March 03, 2004)

[Page: H818]
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I must begin by thanking the staff of the House of Representatives for enduring these long nights so we have a chance to speak our minds about the important subjects of the day. We certainly appreciate the Speaker and the staff who stay here into the wee hours.

I also extend my appreciation to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for the intense causes in which he believes and for his patriotism. I must say, one of the reasons I love my country so much is we have the academic freedom that decisions about what we teach and how we teach it are made by educators and teachers and not by those of us in this Chamber, and I hope that is always the case.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a challenge to the values that I just made reference to, probably the most important challenge to these values that we have faced in many generations in this country.

[Time: 20:30]
In the 1970s a young man named Ghollam Nikbin came to the United States from Iran. He came here to study at an American university. While he was here, the fundamentalist revolution in Iran took place and in 1979 his country changed dramatically and he chose not to return to Iran. At the time he came to the United States he was a person who practiced the Islamic faith. While he was in the United States, he met an American citizen who was a member of the Mormon faith and he married this American citizen and he converted. Mr. Nikbin converted to the Mormon faith himself. That marriage subsequently ended in divorce and in 1991, Mr. Nikbin returned to his native Iran to live his life. While there, he met another woman and they decided to get married and he had a wedding. During his wedding, members of the police force in Iran raided the wedding because the men and women at the wedding were engaged in dancing. Men were dancing with women. For this hideous offense, Mr. Nikbin was publicly lashed 40 times with a whip to punish him for his transgression against the prevailing culture.

Things grew worse for Mr. Nikbin in Iran. He was a suspicious person because he had converted to the Mormon faith and then attempted to convert back to his native Islamic faith. So in 1995 he tried to leave the country. As he was at the airport, he was intercepted by Iranian authorities who refused to let him leave the country. He

[Page: H819]
was beaten with an electric cable and he was hung upside down by his ankles for extended periods of time. Today he is 56 years old. He has returned to the United States. His family says he was able to return to the United States because they were able to bribe the appropriate officials in Iran to get him released from the country. His crime was that he converted to a faith other than radical Islam.
A woman named Zahara Kazemi, a woman of both Iranian and Canadian descent, a 54-year-old woman, last June 23 took an assignment. She was a photo journalist. She took an assignment to go to Iran to do her work as a photo journalist. On the 23rd of June of last year, she was taking photographs of a student demonstration outside of the Evin prison in Iran. She was apprehended by authorities for the hideous crime of taking a photograph of a demonstration. After 77 hours of interrogation in an Iranian prison, she took sick. On the 11th of July of last year, 18 days after she arrived in Iran, she died in an Iranian hospital while in the custody of the Iranian authorities. At first, their report is that she had suffered a stroke and died of natural causes. Many in our sister nation of Canada expressed outrage as to the conditions around Ms. Kazemi's death and the Canadian government was persistent and, finally, 5 days after she died, authorities of the Iranian government indicated that it was not a stroke at all, that she had died from beatings that led to a cerebral hemorrhage, a 54-year-old woman beaten to death in an Iranian prison because she dared to take photographs of a peaceful demonstration.

What kind of monstrous spirit would give rise to these atrocities? It is a spirit we have seen before. It is the spirit, the horrible spirit, the horrible poisonous spirit that led 6 million Jews to the gas chambers during the Holocaust. It is the horrifying spirit that sees people strap C4 to their waists and walk into hotels and onto buses and near schools in the Middle East every day. It is the awful animus that led to the bombings in Riyadh, in Ankara within the last year. The victims are of all faiths, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic. They are of all races and all nationalities. What these horrific acts have in common is they are rooted in the poisonous well of an intolerant hatred of anyone who is not like those who practice that intolerant hatred.

This poisonous attitude is contrary to everything that we are as Americans. It is against inclusion of people of other races and cultures. It is an attitude that despises the equal treatment of men and women under the law. It is an attitude that looks at other faiths not as an opportunity to learn how other people might live but as a threat to one's own twisted faith. By no means is this poisonous attitude representative of the Islamic faith. I believe the Islamic faith is a faith of peace, of humanity, of inclusion. By no means is this twisted attitude wholly representative of the Arab culture or the Arab ethnicity. I believe that the vast majority of men and women of Arab descent love peace, respect others and wish that their children would grow up in a world where others share those values. But make no mistake about it, the poisonous well from which these acts spring is an attitude that identifies everything Western, everything modern, everything progressive, everything that America loves and everything that Americans are. It is an attitude that identifies all those things as a threat to be detested, defeated and destroyed. It is an attitude that we saw in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11 of 2001. It is an attitude that literally blew a hole in the Pentagon.

It is an attitude that led dozens of brave Americans to their death in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Many of us believe that September 11, 2001, was not an isolated criminal act. It was an act of war that shocked Americans into a realization that we are in the midst of a great global struggle between those who love and tolerate diversity and those who deplore it and try to destroy it. So the reason we should care about the stories I told you about Ghollam Nikbin, Zahara Kazemi, the stories that I could have told about hundreds of Iranian students who are in Iranian prisons tonight, the reason we should care is that the hateful attitude from which the attacks on them sprung is an attitude that targets us next, an attitude that seeks to destroy us and our way of life.

By no means is it fair or accurate to say that such an attitude is common or characteristic of the Iranian people, by no means is it fair or accurate to say that it is characteristic of the history of their nation, and by no means is it accurate to say that this hatred will mar and define the future of the people of Iran. I aspire to a future where the people of the United States and the people of Iran are partners in peace and freedom, where we celebrate each other's differences and respect each other's values. But that is not the case today.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we in this House and we in this country could focus on the very grave and real threat posed to the peace that we enjoy tonight by the presence of the terrorist incubator in Iran. When we consider what our policy should be toward Iran, we should not think about September 11 of 2001 because there frankly is no evidence that I have seen that would suggest that the Iranian government was in any way a sponsor of the atrocious attacks on our country on September 11. In fact, the evidence is rather replete with examples that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization have been at odds with the radical fundamentalist Iranian leadership.

But the question is not who allied to attack us on September 11. The issue is who wishes to attack us in the future, where the threats exist for our future. To understand why we want to prevent the next 9/11, why we want to limit the next attack on this country so it does not succeed and so we can defeat such an attack, we need to understand where the first 9/11 came from. In order for terrorists to succeed, they need personnel, they need leadership, they need financial and logistical support, and their leaders need sanctuary. Their leaders need a place where they can plan, plot and eventually execute attacks against the people of the United States of America. September 11 happened because Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization had all four of those elements to attack us. They had the personnel, the 19 twisted individuals who hated us more than they loved life to the point that they were able to turn civilian airliners into weapons of mass destruction. They had the leadership, the odious cadre of dark men who surround Osama bin Laden, who conceived of such a horrific plot. They had the finances and the logistics, passing through international financial organizations, in many cases laundered through Saudi Arabia, laundered through other institutions, many of which to this day refuse to disclose their banking records to us. The terrorists were able to gather the logistics they needed to place the hijackers in America, buy their plane tickets, acquire their training, keep their cover and let them prepare to do their horrible deeds.

And, finally, and I think crucially, the September 11 attackers flourished in the terrorist sanctuary of Afghanistan. At the time Afghanistan was run by the Taliban regime, a group that not only tolerated the presence of al Qaeda but actively facilitated the presence of al Qaeda. I think the argument is rather clear. Without a sanctuary in Afghanistan, there would have been no place for Osama bin Laden to plot this attack. Without a place to plot this attack and gather his resources, there would not have been an opportunity to carry out the attack. Without the opportunity to carry out the attack, there certainly would not have been the carnage and pain this country felt and still feels emanating from September 11.

What is the lesson of September 11? There are two lessons. The first is if you give terrorists sanctuary, they will exploit that sanctuary and, like a snake that is coiled in the corner, they will wait till precisely the right moment to strike. And the second lesson of September 11 is if you wait for the snake to strike, it always will. If our strategy in the face of this global struggle is to wait and see if terrorists who enjoy sanctuary will attack us, I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is a question. I think history is conclusive on this point. If you wait for terrorists to attack you, they will. This is the context in which we must understand what is happening in Iran today and

[Page: H820]
why it is important to the United States of America to rethink the way we approach this problem.
Iran is a place where terrorist organizations who disrupt the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations find refuge, find weaponry, find cash. It is a place where admittedly significant al Qaeda elements are present tonight. There is an argument as to exactly what they are doing. The Iranian authorities would tell us that they are in the custody of the Iranian government. Some would suggest that the Iranian government are using these al Qaeda leaders as pawns to try to facilitate the release of terrorists held by the Israelis and other law-abiding nations of the world. But irrespective of the purpose for which the Iranian government holds al Qaeda terrorists tonight, the fact is they are present in Iran tonight.

[Time: 20:45]
They found Iran to be a place that was a willing sanctuary for their activities. There can be no good inured to America's benefit from that sanctuary continuing.

What do terrorists need? They need leadership. They need people who are willing to conceive of these terrible plans that spring from this awful wellspring of intolerance and hatred. They need personnel. They need to recruit young men and young women and, in some cases, children who are willing to put their own lives at stake to manifest that hatred by killing thousands of others. They need money and logistics to carry out their attack. They need weaponry, and they need sanctuary. I think it is indisputable that Iran is such a sanctuary. It is indisputable that if tonight the CIA, the National Security Agency, other U.S. intelligence operatives had information that there were terrorists at loose in Iran and they asked for the cooperation of the Iranian government, I think it is indisputable that at best, at best, we would get noninterference; at worst we would get active resistance.

Mr. Speaker, if those same terrorists were loose in Jordan, the Jordanian government would help us. If those terrorists were loose in Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government would help us. If they were loose in Israel, the Israeli government would not need our help. They would just find them and take care of the problem. If they were loose in the countries of our European allies, I am quite confident that we would have the assistance of those allies, in South America, in the Philippines. Iran is a place where terrorists will find the medium in which their peculiar form of bacteria need to grow.

What logistics might Iran supply to a terrorist who wants to attack the United States of America? Today for every 100 containers that enter the ports of the United States in these huge containers we see out by the ports, for every 100 of those containers that enter the United States, two of them were inspected, 98 were not. It is commonly known that one of the ways that we are at risk is that as the huge influx of trade comes and goes from our country in container ships, that the planting of a small nuclear weapon on a container ship could cause catastrophic results in this country that would dwarf the pain of September 11.

Where might terrorists find such a nuclear bomb? Sadly, there are a number of places. One of those places is from hungry former Soviet scientists who were living relatively well under the old regime in the USSR and then found themselves driving cabs and waiting on tables and very hungry and very anxious in the years that follow. It is one of the great bipartisan failures of this country for which we all should take responsibility, myself included, that we have not been sufficiently vigilant since the waning days of the Soviet Empire in identifying, corralling, and destroying weapons of mass destruction that were held by the Soviet Union. There are too many of them in too many places. They are too cheap and too portable. We owe thanks to the great work of former Senator Nunn and present Senator Lugar for giving us the legal authority to solve this problem. We are sadly negligent in not using that legal authority to its greatest extent.

Where else might a terrorist find a small nuclear bomb that could be transported in a container ship to the United States? Mr. Speaker, if we would have asked the Iranian government that question 2 years ago, they would have said not here; we are not in the business of trying to make nuclear bombs, not us. For years, for 23 years, since the installation of the present regime in Tehran, the official party line was that the Iranian government was not interested in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon.

In December of 2002, that all changed. Iranian dissidents who were fortunate to escape the country began talking to intelligence leaders around the world, and they talked with specificity. They talked about centrifuges, fissile materials. They talked about the enrichment of uranium. They talked about a program of plutonium separation that could lead to the manufacture of a nuclear bomb. And enough of them talked to enough people, and enough enlightened people paid attention, that in December of 2002, while our country was fixated upon the very grave question of what to do about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, while we were grappling with many other problems in our own country, in December of 2002, the government of Iran acknowledged that reports that it was building facilities capable of producing the fissile materials that would lead to a nuclear weapon were true. The Iranian government admitted this. After 23 years of deception, the Iranian government admitted that facilities at Iraq and Natanz in Iran were, in fact, facilities which were capable of producing the fissile materials necessary to make a nuclear bomb.

On February 21 of last year, 2003, the leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. ElBaradei,

visited Iran after extreme international pressure following the Iranian disclosure. On June 6 of 2003, Mr. ElBaradei issued a report saying that the facilities that I mentioned, in particular the Natanz facility, was an advanced uranium enrichment facility capable of performing the steps necessary and essential to the creation of a nuclear bomb. On September 12 of 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued an ultimatum to the Iranians which said by October 31 of last year, Iranians were to prove to the world that they were not working on building nuclear bombs. The clock ticked. The world was not very specific as to what we would do if the Iranians failed to provide that proof, reminiscent of how the world was similarly negligent in dealing with Saddam Hussein for 12 long years.

Finally, on October 21 of 2003, the Iranians invited representatives of the French, German, and British governments to Tehran. They began to negotiate and they worked out a joint communique with the governments of France and Germany and the United Kingdom, which said that the Iranians would permit full inspections, they would suspend their uranium enrichment program, that they would sign international agreements that civilized nations follow with respect to the production of nuclear weapons, and that essentially they would stop trying to build a nuclear weapon. The world reacted with cautious optimism.

The Iranians handed over files and files of documents that described what they had been doing over the course of more than 2 decades in the past. Those documents showed that the Iranians had engaged in a secretive uranium enrichment program over at least a 19-year period for which there could be no plausible explanation other than it was leading to the production of a nuclear bomb. The world was divided as to what to do about this, and the consensus on the International Atomic Energy Agency was that we should criticize the Iranians for what they had done and lied about in the past and then warn them not to do it again. Warnings like the ones we gave to the Taliban repeatedly throughout the 1990s not to cooperate with Osama bin Laden, warnings like we gave to Saddam Hussein repeatedly throughout the 1990s that he was to disengage his weapons programs and to leave his neighbors alone. Warnings.

The warnings have not had the intended effect. Two weeks ago, the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency released on February 24 of 2004 found some curious evidence, and that is that the Iranians had agreed to stop their program of uranium enrichment, which is one path to build a nuclear bomb; but another path to build a nuclear bomb is called plutonium separation. Obviously, the

[Page: H821]
Iranians who signed this agreement got very good legal advice because they learned how to define their way out of the problem because the Iranians did not breach apparently in the last few months their responsibility not to carry out uranium enrichment programs, but they did evidently step up a program that is involved in the separation of plutonium, yet another path to reach the same horrible result. Mr. ElBaradei said Iran is moving in the right direction with respect to this weapons program, that there is reason for optimism, that there are moderate influences beginning to influence the Iranian government. Well, can we afford to take the chance that he is wrong?
International experts suspected for 2 decades that Iran was pursuing the development of a nuclear bomb, but they never knew for sure; and I know that the annals of intelligence estimates are filled with conclusions that the best judgment was that Iran was not marching toward the creation of a nuclear bomb. Those assessments were wrong. If this new set of assessments is wrong, we will find out to our peril what the consequences of that error are.

Is the present leadership of Iran capable of placing a small nuclear bomb on a cargo ship in a container and floating it into the harbor of a major American city? Some would say, no, they are not capable. It would not be in their interest to do so. There would be massive retaliation against them by the United States. Others would say they are imminently capable of such atrocities. The family of Zahara Kazemi I would assume would agree with that proposition. Mr. Ghollam Nikbin I assume would agree with that proposition. Those who sit tonight in Iranian prisons and those who have been executed in Iranian prisons in recent days and weeks, if they were alive, would agree with that proposition.

Should we wait and see? Should it be our policy to take an educated guess and find out? Many intelligence analysts took an educated guess about the Taliban in Afghanistan 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 3 years ago, and here is what their assessment was: the Taliban are terrible people. Osama bin Laden is an awful force in the world. He was behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. He was behind the attack of the USS Cole in the year 2000. He was involved in the Khobar Towers bombing. Something needs to be done. But the assessment about the Taliban's role in this was that it was ludicrous to think that the Taliban government was a threat to the United States.

[Time: 21:00]
It is certainly not an imminent threat to the United States. A government that could barely manage its own affairs, a government that was not a threat to its own neighbors militarily, was certainly not a threat to the United States of America.

There would have been those who would stand on this floor 3 years ago and argue passionately that for us to aggressively pursue a policy of regime change in Afghanistan would be a gross overreaction. Why should we worry about a regime as weak as that one? On September 11, 2001, we got our answer. Regimes that harbor terrorists, regimes that have the capability of arming terrorists with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, regimes that finance and facilitate terrorism, are a threat to the people of the United States of America. These regimes should not be negotiated with, they should not be heeded, they should not be abided. They should be replaced.

Which American tonight would not agree that we would have prospered from regime change in Afghanistan 3 years ago? There is lots of dispute tonight as to whether we are prospering from regime change in Baghdad tonight. I certainly think we are. I think it is one of the reasons that Mu'ammar Qadhafi voluntarily surrendered his nuclear weapons, so he will not wind up living in a spider hole at the end of this year.

I think it is one of the reasons that President Assad in Syria for the first time in his tenure as president is furtively working behind the scenes to open negotiations with the Israelis, so that maybe some day he will expel Hamas and Hizbollah from his countries. I think it is one of the reasons why the Saudi Arabians, after years of culpability in terrorism, years of a ``deal with the devil'' in which they looked the other way when terrorists operated within their country, are now more actively cooperating in the crackdown on those terrorists. And I think it is one of the reasons why the Iranians in December of 2002, on the verge of the United States action against Iraq, decided to come clean about 23 years of lying about the development of a nuclear weapon.

Regime change in Iran should be the policy of the United States of America; not negotiation, not cooperation, regime change. Regime change does not mean military action. Military action is the final step. Military action is the last, and, if necessary, essential step, if necessary, to regime change.

Far more effective to the pursuit of this goal are the diplomatic, economic and moral assets of the United States of America. I am not calling for the use of military force against Iran; I am calling for the concerted, coordinated use of this country's diplomatic, economic force to achieve a regime change in Tehran. I believe it is not only in the interests of human rights, of persecuted citizens of that country, it is in the interests of the national security of the United States of America.

What does regime change mean in Iran? Who is the regime? The answer to this question is not self-evident. Iran is a schizophrenic state. On the surface, it is conducting what appears to be a parliamentary government with what appear to be reasonably free elections with what appears to be something resembling democracy.

These appearances are lethally deceptive. The President of Iran got 77 percent of the vote in the popular election, but I think realistically he has zero percent of the power in that country. Instead, a council of elders, 12 men, 12, have effective control over the military, over the economic institutions of that country, over the meaningful ebb and flow of life in Iran. Even though those 12 have such control, they are wary, they are reluctant to even let the appearance of that control stray too far.

In the last month or so in Iran there were elections scheduled for the national legislative body of that country, and most outside analysts saw those elections as a struggle between the so-called more moderate liberalizing forces of the country and the more conservative cultural forces of that country. 3,600 candidates of the moderate persuasion were removed from the ballot by the council of elders. Twelve people, none of whom were elected, each of whom was appointed through the religious oligarchy of Iran, 12 people used their power to remove 3,600 people from the ballot. 1,000 or so were restored after huge public protests.

But I believe that the only conclusion one can draw from this is that the feeble images of democracy in Iran are only a deceptive image, and not a meaningful reality for that country.

These are foreboding and difficult thoughts, but there is great reason to be optimistic that the regime change that would benefit America is very much on the minds of young men and women, and older men and women, who live under the oppressive yoke of the medieval government of Iran.

So many Iranian Americans are engaged in conversations with their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers back home. Iranian Americans make a magnificent contribution to this country every day, in our hospitals, in our universities, in our corporations, in our governments, in our military, and these loyal and patriotic Americans, who have had a taste of freedom, a taste of what it means to be respected for your religious differences and not reviled, they have spread the word of this intoxicating freedom to their loved ones back in Iran.

Even though Iran is a place where you can be whipped for dancing at a wedding, even though it is a place where you can be beaten to death in prison for taking a photograph of a peaceful demonstration, it is a place where the rulers still cannot stop the flow of technology. The Internet, the fax machine, the cellular phone, these are the most powerful weapons against tyranny in the history of mankind. And even in a place like Iran, the leaders cannot make themselves impervious to the rush of truth that comes into their country in greater torrents with each passing day.

I think that people in Iran are looking for a signal from the United States of America. They are not looking for weakness or ambiguity or vacillation.

[Page: H822]
We are students of our own history, and we know that at the time the colonies rebelled against the British, there were many naysayers in America. There were many who said that this was a foolish experiment; that it was reckless for people to pledge their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to try to do something better. It was suicidal, it was crazy.

Some were active opponents of the revolution. Others, and these others may have been more dangerous, sat on the fence. They were not sure what signal they should send. They were not sure whether they were ready to fight for their freedom or not.

The United States has sent a powerful signal I think to the world by saying that we are willing to take on, with our allies, the difficult work of introducing that sacred gift of freedom to the people of Iraq. We should not be ambiguous in offering that same gift to the people of Iran.

We should not, we should not, be engaged in any overt military acts, unless intelligence would warrant action to the contrary, specific intelligence. I repeat, I am not calling for a policy of military engagement against the Iranian government. But I am absolutely calling for an expression as clear as a bell that the freedom that we enjoy here, the freedom that we aspire to see the people of Iraq enjoy, is the freedom that we wish to see the people of Iran enjoy, and we will not be fooled or deceived by the false front of a faux democratic government. We will not relent in our opposition to that government's effort to build a nuclear bomb. We will not back down in the face of any international criticism as to the purity and import of this evil.

It would be horribly wrong and horribly prejudicial to leave anyone with the impression that any significant portion of the 1 billion Muslims in this world are dedicated to the eradication of us and our way of life. They are not. It would be horribly wrong and horribly false to leave anyone with the impression that people of the Arab culture and descent or the Persian culture and descent are dedicated to the destruction of our way of life. They are most emphatically not.

I believe that the vast majority of people of the Islamic faith, of the Arab and Persian ethnicities, wish to live in freedom and to celebrate diversity and to join the future, rather than wallowing in the past.

But it is irrefutable that there is a force present in the world, a small but malignant force present in the world, that wishes to do us grave harm, that wishes to destroy our way of life and destroy the chance to spread our way of life to those in all corners of the world who would wish to enjoy it, and that force calls itself radical Islam.

It is a perversion of the Islamic faith. It is a hijacking of that faith of peace. But it is what those who practice this poisonous attitude call themselves. And where they find sanctuary and where they find money and where they find weaponry and where they find personnel and where they find leadership, these are the places that will incubate the next September 11.

There are really two views about terrorism in America, and they are not liberal and conservative, or Republican and Democrat, or military and diplomatic. The two views are these:

Some people view terrorism as a series of essentially unrelated crimes; horrible crimes, but crimes that spring from independent criminals. With the exception of the link between the USS Cole bombing and the first World Trade Center and the second one, all of which can be attributed to al Qaeda, proponents of this view would argue that we need to react to each one of these isolated incidents by prosecuting those who committed the offense, shoring up our defenses so it cannot happen again.

The other view of terrorism, which I hold and I believe that history teaches us is the correct view, is that these are not a series of isolated incidents; that we are engaged in a struggle between those who would destroy our way of life and those who would stand by us and protect our way of life.

[Time: 21:15]
The most horrific example of that struggle was the one that he experienced in September of 2001. Shame on us if we do not learn from that example. If we draw the lesson that September 11 was about one terrorist organization operating out of one country that on one occasion was able to succeed in a massive terrorist attack against this country, we are misreading history to our great peril.

If instead we understand what happened then differently, if instead we say that the lesson that we learn is that when you give terrorists leadership and personnel and money and weaponry and sanctuary, they will attack. It is not in our interest to make lists of countries that we want to attack. It diminishes our strength. It lessens our standing in the world, and we should not do it. But it is most emphatically in our interest to categorize and understand where the next sanctuary might be.

Everyone in this Chamber wishes that he or she had the foresight to know that Afghanistan was such a sanctuary 3 years ago. We could have avoided a calamity of unspeakable proportions in this country. The issue tonight, Mr. Speaker, is where is the next sanctuary.

I believe that the heroic actions accomplished by American troops and allied troops in Iraq has gone a long way toward removing Iraq as such a sanctuary. I am certain that the heroic efforts of our troops in Afghanistan have essentially removed Afghanistan as such a potential sanctuary.

Tonight our attention should very much be focused on Iran as such a sanctuary. It is a state that is capable of imprisoning and beating innocent people for dancing and taking photographs. It is a state that for 23 years lied about its development of nuclear bombs. It is a state that is either trying to put a good-faith effort forward to stop its weapons program or trying to put the best face on an effort that really is not taking place as the weapons program continues.

The lesson of September 11 is do not take chances on estimates. Act and make sure others cannot act against you.

I believe that this country should engage in three steps immediately. First, we should unambiguously announce that the policy of the United States of America is to encourage regime change in Iran, by which I mean the Council of Elders that runs the country; and by which I mean the replacement of that Council of Elders with a truly representative group of people chosen by the Iranian people.

The second thing we should do is fully enforce the Iran Sanctions Act passed by this Congress a few years ago. We should inventory every trade, aid, economic and regulatory tool at our disposal and use those tools. We should broadcast freedom into Iran more aggressively. We should break down the information barriers and tell young Iranians that we will be on their side if they rise up and fight for freedom. We should encourage the patriotic, law abiding citizens of this country who are of Iranian descent to become actively engaged in encouraging their brothers and sisters in their native land to make the regime change that will benefit them and us.

The third step is that we should seek international cooperation on every level for this effort. It will not be easy. There will be those who will say this is yet another American overreaction, that this is a further policy of American unilateralism. We should never be unilateral. We should always seek the cooperation of allies.

We should also understand the attacks that are launched by terrorists will be unilateral. They will have one target. They will start with the Israelis. They always do. But they will eventually get to the United States of America. We should ask for and actively seek the cooperation of our European and Asian friends in meeting these efforts. Frankly, the actions of the International Atomic Energy Agency have been very helpful in this regard. We should continue those efforts, but we should not make the mistake of assuming that their security risk here is the same as our security risk.

When there is a demonstration sponsored by the medieval elements in a country like Iran, it is not the German flag that they burn. They do not shout death to Germany. They do not destroy likenesses of the Eiffel Tower or Big Ben. They burn the American flag. They smash likenesses of the American Capitol, and they clearly let us know that we are the ones who are in their sights. So be it.

[Page: H823]
If we understand that we are the targets, then we must understand we have a special responsibility to act. I believe that this is a program for peace. I think the best way to achieve peace is to show those who would disrupt peace that you will not tolerate it. It is peace through strength, and after we have been lied to for 23 years about the creation of a nuclear bomb, a nuclear bomb which could be floated into the harbors of this country and used as a weapon of awful destruction against the people of America, after we have seen the torture against innocent people that takes place in Iran every day and is taking place tonight, I think the stakes are clear. If we are true to our conviction of peace through strength, we will make regime change the policy of the United States of America. Not through violence, not through attack, not through aggression, not through war. We should always reserve the right to act in our defense. But we should always understand that the best way to project our power is through our freedom, our economic might, our diplomatic credibility which sadly needs to be rebuilt in many ways.

It is my objective as a Member of the United States Congress that I will never again have another day like September 12, 2001, when I came to this building not sure whether it was safe to be in, after a sleepless night, and asked myself what I had failed to do to prevent the mayhem that had occurred in my country the day before. I asked myself whether any of the $3 trillion of the taxpayers' money I had voted to spend on intelligence and defense of this country had done us any good the previous day. I never want to live another September 12. I never again want to have to think what we could have done to learn the lessons of terrorism and stop another terrorist attack.

If we take decisive action and, among other things, if we pursue the policy of regime change in Iran, I believe that the likelihood of having another September 12, 2001, will diminish; and more importantly, the likelihood of a catastrophic repeat of September 11, 2001, using a nuclear weapon will diminish greatly.

We owe our country nothing less. We owe the decent people of Iran nothing less; and we owe it to our sense of history to get this very important job done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Paul Bauer of my staff who was very instrumental in getting the research done for this effort. And, again, I would like to thank the staff of the House of Representatives for being with us so I would have this opportunity to speak.

END

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r108:./temp/~r108m7aaqj

9 posted on 03/04/2004 7:35:16 AM PST by nuconvert (CAUTION: I'm an acquaintance of someone labelled :"an obstinate supporter of dangerous fantasies")

Freedom in Iran ~ Now ~ Bump!

GWB is The Man ~ Bump!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

10 posted on 03/04/2004 7:54:57 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)

11 posted on 03/04/2004 8:00:38 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

S. California's Iranian diaspora intervenes in US electoral campaign

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Mar 3, 2004

The south Californian Iranian diaspora started, today, its official intervention in the US electoral process.

While several hundreds of Iranians rushed to show their support of President Bush at the occasion of his speech in Los Angeles, tens of other rushed to Orange County in order to protest against John Kerry and its immoral Iranian fund raisers who are pushing for the removal of sanctions against the Islamic republic regime. It's to note that President Bush speech was made at Shrin Auditorium and the Kerry's controversial fund raisers were holding their "gala" at the Ritz Carlton in Dana Point.

Slogans in favor of President Bush and the continuation of pressures on the Oppressive and Terrorist Islamic regime, along with Condemnation of John Kerry's intention to establish relations with the Mullahs and Denouncing the pro-regime lobbyists were shouted during the two demos.

The main Iranian organizers and guests of this evening's controversial "gala" at Ritz Carlton were the very same Faraj-Alai, Susan Akbarpoor and Hassan Namazee who have tried for the last seven years to show a "better" face of the Islamic regime and to use their access to Democrat circles for trying to establish relations between the US and a repressive regime rejected by most Iranians.

Ritz Carlton at Dana Point has often been used by these controversial Iranians who are rejected by most Iranian-Americans for pushing their immoral agenda. The resort was the scene, in year 2000, of a noisy demo when the Islamic regime's FM made his speech.

Speaking to the Los Angeles based "Voice of Iran" (KRSI), Aryo Pirouznia of SMCCDI, condemned, this afternoon, the "immoral actions of the few well known Iranians who are closing eyes on the plight of their countrymen and are using their position to gain support of a blood thristy regime".

"It's the duty of any respectable Iranian to rush showing support of President Bush and to reject the pro-regime's lobbyist's shameful actions" he added.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5191.shtml

12 posted on 03/04/2004 8:02:20 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

US Seeking Common Stance Towards Iran

March 03, 2004
The Financial Times
Roula Khalaf and Stephen Fidler

Washington will not press next week to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council at a meeting of the governing board of the UN's nuclear watchdog, in spite of Iran's failure last year to come clean on all aspects of its uranium enrichment programme.

According to a senior US administration official, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna will focus on the success of Libya's disarmament rather than on Iran's nuclear controversy.

Although the US has consistently adopted a hard line over Iran's nuclear programme, the official said it would co-operate with European governments that have favoured a more moderate approach. "We are very determined . . . that Iran gets no perception that there is any difference among us about the need to hold Iran's feet to the fire," the US official said.

Iran would face increased international pressure if the issue was referred to the UN. "The United States is not going to seek to move it to the Security Council," the official said.

In a report last week to the IAEA board, Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general, said Iran's omission of any reference to its possession of the so-called P-2 centrifuge design drawings and related research and testing activities was "a matter of serious concern". It ran counter to Iran's declaration in October, which was supposed to be comprehensive.

The report outlined other undeclared activity, including the secret production of polonium, a radioactive element that can be used in triggers of thermonuclear weapons.

Tehran, however, has moved quickly to ensure the support of European governments in Vienna next week by telling the IAEA that it has now agreed to European demands for a fuller suspension of its uranium enrichment programme.

Britain, France and Germany struck a deal with Tehran in October that allowed for more intrusive inspections of Iranian nuclear sites and for the suspension of uranium enrichment.

The agreement was threatened by Iran's insistence on a narrow definition of the suspension. According to the IAEA, however, Iran has now agreed to halt the assembly and testing of centrifuges and the domestic manufacture of centrifuge components.

The US official said he was comfortable with the tactical differences between the Europeans and the US as long as the ultimate objective - a complete cessation of Iranian enrichment activities - remained the same.

"The danger is [that] the greater the length of time that is bought, the more progress the Iranians are making in their clandestine weapons programme," the official said. Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

The US is seeking to have Libya referred by next week's meeting to the Security Council for its past non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to establish a precedent.

But the official expected the resolution would also praise Libya's decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction programmes.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1077690871142&p=1012571727172

13 posted on 03/04/2004 8:03:45 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Gadhafi's Mea Culpa on Arms, Terror

March 04, 2004
United Press International
Kenneth R. Timmerman

SIRTE, Libya -- In a turnabout from 35 years of hostility to the West, Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi told delegates at the opening of the Libyan People's National Congress in this seaside resort town Tuesday that his government had renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and declared that "a new era has started" of openness and cooperation with the United States.

In an address to the nation's top elected leaders as well as seven members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Libyan leader gave the first detailed public account of the reasons behind his surprise announcement on Dec. 19 that Tripoli was prepared to abandon its hitherto secret nuclear-weapons program.

He also detailed Libya's extensive support for insurgencies, including the Irish Republican Army, South West African People's Organization (SWAPO) and the African National Congress, while pledging an end to that era.

"We have guests from countries that have launched wars against us, and this pleases us," said Col. Gadhafi, in a nod to the U.S. congressman who had addressed the gathering just minutes before the Libyan leader appeared. "We are grateful to them for coming, but now the Libyan people shall hear the meaning of this."

Col. Gadhafi spent close to 90 minutes telling his story to the People's Congress, many of whom later said they heard the details for the first time.

"There were stories in the press and rumors that Libya might have a secret nuclear program," Prime Minister Shokri Ghanem told UPI after the speech, "but no one really knew for sure."

And although "people knew officially that we supported liberation movements" in the past, no Libyan government official had come out with such a frank account as Col. Gadhafi had.

"No one separated Libya from the world community," Col. Gadhafi insisted. "Libya voluntarily separated itself from others" by its actions.

"No one has imposed sanctions on us or punished us. We have punished ourselves." The irony, Col. Gadhafi stated repeatedly, was "all these things were done for the sake of others."

In a brutally self-critical account of Libya's past support for radical movements worldwide, Col. Gadhafi concluded that the country had paid a high price for its adventures.

"Libya helped African nations" as they were breaking away from former colonial powers, "and we made other countries view Libya as an enemy."

Libya helped the Palestinians, and now "the Palestinian president enters the White House. And we tell [Yasser] Arafat we oppose America because of you? How can [Arafat] enter the White House and we not improve our relations with the United States?"

Because of the changing circumstances in the world, where former enemies have become partners, if not friends, Col. Gadhafi said, "we decided to review our decisions, and concluded that we had isolated ourselves from the rest of the world."

"If the Palestinians can recognize Israel, how can we not recognize that country?" he asked. "We cannot be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves." The liberation struggles that Libya had supported "are finished, the battle is finished ... Now people are shaking hands. So should only we stay enemies?"

Turning to his previously secret nuclear-weapons program, he noted that Libya, like many developing nations, had sought to acquire nuclear weapons "without really thinking against whom we would use it."

"But today ... it becomes a problem to have a nuclear bomb.

"At the time, it was maybe the fashion to have a nuclear bomb. Today, you have no enemy. Who's the enemy?" he asked.

"Yes, there was such a program," Col. Gadhafi said of Libya's nuclear-weapons effort. Libya chose to declare it to the United States and Britain and seek their help in dismantling it "because it's in our own interest and security."

When the American teams came secretly last year to Libya to begin verifying its declarations, they asked why Tripoli had not divulged the program before. "Because now there are new realities. We are adapting to the new realities," he said.

At another point, Col. Gadhafi said, "We got rid of it. It was a waste of time; it cost too much money." He called on all countries to "get rid of their [weapons of mass destruction]," naming the United States, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, but not Israel, which is not a declared nuclear-weapons state.

Turning to the United States, the Libyan leader said he was hoping for technology to help develop his country's economy, as well as joint ventures with U.S. firms. "We can be friends because we are not enemies anymore," he said.

"We were part of history tonight," Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican, who led the seven-member congressional delegation, told UPI. "Colonel Gadhafi's statements were unequivocal. There were no ifs, ands or buts."

Rep. Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Democrat, said Col. Gadhafi had shown political courage. "I have lots of respect and admiration for a man who publicly admits his mistakes. It takes a lot of guts to say what he said in front of all these people. But now, he must live up to it."

In his colorful presentation, Col. Gadhafi frequently sounded the theme that nuclear weapons and terrorism were no longer a guarantor of security, but a security risk. Having publicly abandoned its weapons and opened its nuclear sites to international inspections, Libya had enhanced its security, not diminished it, he said.

"If there is any aggression against Libya now, the whole world will come to defend Libya," he said. "Yesterday, that was not the case."

The U.S. congressmen applauded Col. Gadhafi when he spoke of his desire to build a strong new relationship with the United States, and were upbeat about the prospects for bilateral cooperation.

"At first, I was just listening to the speech, but what he was saying was so amazing that I started writing it down so I could report to my constituents," said Rep. Susan A. Davis, California Democrat. "I took 24 pages of notes."

"I thought it was very sincere and well thought out and vigorously pleaded," said Rep. Chris Chocola, Indiana Republican. The United States "should accept his posture, but trust and verify."

The U.S. government has commended Libya for its cooperation in disclosing and dismantling its ballistic missiles and chemical and nuclear weapons. "The Libyans are now waiting to see if we are going to come through, or whether we just wanted to get the weapons out," Mr. Weldon said.

In recounting his earlier relations with the United States, Col. Gadhafi pointed out that when he asked the United States to abandon its military bases in Libya, the army left "and we were still friends."

"The incredible thing about being here is to hear a former antagonist of our country say, 'What in the world was I thinking when I took on a superpower?' " said Rep. Sylvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat. "I thought it was an incredible historic moment. This could potentially redefine our relations with Africa, and potentially with the most conflicted part of the world, which is the Middle East."

"If I had not been here and had Chairman Weldon or Congressman Ortiz tell me about it, I would not have believed it," he added.

Mr. Weldon had led the first bipartisan congressional delegation to Libya from Jan. 25 to 27 and had met with the Libyan leader for more than two hours. He told Mr. Ghanem, the prime minister, at the time that he intended to return in the near future.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had been invited to address the People's Congress with Mr. Weldon, but previously unscheduled floor votes kept him in Washington until late Tuesday evening.

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040303-094729-9764r.htm

14 posted on 03/04/2004 8:05:02 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Top U.S. official: Iran Hiding Nuclear Weapons Program

March 04, 2004
Reuters
Ha'aretz

LISBON - A top U.S. official accused Iran on Thursday of concealing a nuclear weapons program, and said international pressure must be kept up to make Tehran reveal it.

John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, said the United States, its European allies and other countries on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were determined eventually to force Iran to come clean about its atomic weapons program.

"We are not going to reduce the pressure on Iran," Bolton told a news conference. "We think the pressure they've been under has been critical to their revealing the pieces about their nuclear program that they already have revealed."

Bolton, a well-known hawk in the Washington administration, confirmed the United States would not seek to have the IAEA, the UN nuclear watchdog, report Iran to the UN Security Council, a move that could lead to sanctions.

But he declared: "We think the Iranians are still trying to conceal a clandestine weapons program, and that's why it remains a grave concern to us."

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has declined to say whether the IAEA board would censure Iran at a March 8 meeting, but said this week Tehran was cooperating better with global non-proliferation efforts.

He voiced confidence that Iran would make good on a pledge to suspend uranium enrichment activities. Tehran insists its nuclear effort is purely to generate electricity.

Bolton was in Lisbon for a two-day meeting of 14 countries that are part of the Proliferation Security Initiative. Canada, Norway and Singapore are attending for the first time.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=401223&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

15 posted on 03/04/2004 8:06:28 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Bush: Regimes of North Korea and Iran are Challenging the Peace

March 03, 2004
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

"Our future also depends on America's leadership in this world. The momentum of freedom in our time is strong, but we still face serious dangers. Al Qaeda is wounded, but not broken. Terrorists are testing our will in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regimes of North Korea and Iran are challenging the peace. If America shows weakness and uncertainty in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004 Reception
The Shrine Auditorium
Los Angeles, California

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) Thank you all for coming. Appreciate you coming. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome. It is great to be back in Los Angeles. I'm thankful you all are here.

I'm aware that they handed out the Oscars last Sunday night. "Terminator 3" didn't win any. (Laughter.) But the star of the movie had a pretty good year. (Applause.) I know he's new to politics, but he is getting used to all the lights and the cameras. (Applause.) I used to think my brother, Jeb, was the coolest governor. (Applause.) By electing Arnold Schwarzenegger, the voters of California have shown that no party can take this state for granted. (Applause.)

The Vice President and I are going to be spending some quality time in the state of California. With your help, we're going to make California part of a nationwide victory in November of '04. (Applause.)

Speaking of the Vice President, he's doing a fine job. The country has had no finer Vice President than Dick Cheney. (Applause.) Mother may have a second opinion. (Laughter.)

It's good to see the Desert Moms here. (Applause.) Those are the ones who didn't go through the background check. (Laughter.) But recently, Laura was in the desert with the Moms. (Applause.) And she sends her best to not only the Moms, but all the folks here. I'm really proud of Laura. She is a fabulous First Lady and a great wife. (Applause.)

I want to thank my friend, Brad Freeman, who has been a loyal friend. He's the state finance chairman here in California. I want to thank my friend, Gerry Parsky, who's the state campaign general chairman. I want to thank my friend, Mercer Reynolds, from Cincinnati, Ohio, who is the chairman of the Bush-Cheney Reelect Campaign. I appreciate the fact that Bill Simon is here, and his wife, Cindy. I want to thank them for having served. (Applause.)

I want to thank all the grassroots activists who are here. (Applause.) There you go. I appreciate my friend, Rabbi Marvin Hier, who gave the blessing. He has a wonderful heart. It sets an incredibly important tone for the country. (Applause.) I want to thank Art Yoon, who's the Mayor Pro Tem of Hermosa Beach, for leading the pledge.

But most of all, I want to thank you all for being our friend. Thank you for helping us. (Applause.) Thank you for getting ready for this campaign.

Last night, I placed a call to Senator Kerry. I told him I was looking forward to a spirited campaign. I congratulated him on his victory. This should be an interesting debate on the issues. He spent two decades in Congress; he's built up quite a record. (Laughter.) In fact, Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue. (Applause.)

The voters will have a very clear choice this year between keeping the tax relief that is moving this economy forward, or putting the burden of higher taxes back on the American people. It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence, or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger. (Applause.) I'm ready for this campaign. (Applause.) I look forward to setting the alternative squarely before the American people.

We've achieved great things the past three years. But most importantly, we have a positive vision for the years ahead; a positive vision for winning the war against terror and extending peace and freedom. (Applause.) A positive vision for creating jobs and promoting opportunity; a positive vision for compassion here at home. We'll leave no doubt where we stand, and we will win on the 2nd of November. (Applause.)

The last three years have brought serious challenges, and we have given serious answers. We came to office with a stock market in decline, an economy heading into recession. We delivered historic tax relief, and now our economy is the fastest growing of any industrialize nation. (Applause.)

We confronted corporate criminals that cost people their jobs and their savings. So we passed strong corporate reforms and made it clear we will not tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America. (Applause.)

We saw war and grief arrive on a quiet September morning. So we pursued the terrorist enemy across the world. We captured or killed many of the key leaders of the al Qaeda network. And the rest of them will learn there is no cave or hole deep enough to hide from American justice. (Applause.)

We confronted the dangers of state-sponsored terror, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. So we ended the two most violent and dangerous regimes on Earth. We freed over 50 million people. And once again, America is proud to lead the armies of liberation. (Applause.)

When Dick Cheney and I came to Washington, we found a military that was underfunded and under-appreciated. So we gave our military the resources and respect they deserve. (Applause.) And, today, no one in the world can question the skill and the strength and the spirit of the United States military. (Applause.)

When we came to office, people had gotten used to gridlock, and old problems were used to score political points. Old problems were politicized and debated and then just passed on from year to year. But we came to Washington to get things done. We passed major reforms to raise the standards in our public schools. We passed reforms in Medicare to get prescription drugs and choices to our seniors. We have chosen to lead, and we have delivered results for the American people. (Applause.)

It is the President's job to confront problems, not to pass them on to future Presidents and future generations. (Applause.) A President needs to step up, make the hard decisions, keep his commitments -- and that is exactly how I will continue to lead our country. (Applause.)

Great events will turn on this election. The man who sits in the Oval Office will set the course of the war on terror, and the direction of our economy. The security and prosperity of America are at stake. My opponent hasn't offered much in the way of strategies to win the war, or policies to expand our economy. So far, all we hear from that side is a lot of old bitterness and partisan anger. Anger is not an agenda for the future of America. (Applause.) My administration has taken on the big issues with optimism and resolve and determination, and we stand ready to lead this nation for four more years. (Applause.)

A big issue for every family in America is the federal tax burden. With the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was President, we've left more money in the hands that earned it. By spending and investing and helping create new jobs, the American people have used their money far better than the government would have. (Applause.) Because we acted, our economy is growing stronger. The economy grew in the second half of 2003 at the fastest rate in nearly 20 years. Productivity is high; business investment is rising; interest rates and inflation are low; home ownership is the highest rate ever; manufacturing is increasing. We've added 336,000 new jobs over the last five months. The tax relief we passed is working. (Applause.)

My opponent has plans for those tax cuts. He wants to take them away. And he will use that money to expand the federal government. I have a better idea -- to keep this economy growing and to create jobs, the tax cuts must be permanent. (Applause.)

And we must do more to keep the economy growing. We need to maintain fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C. We need to protect small business owners and employees from frivolous lawsuits and needless regulation. (Applause.) We need to help control the costs of health care by passing federal medical liability reform. (Applause.) We need to continue to open up markets for America's farmers and ranchers and entrepreneurs and manufacturers. We need to pass sound energy legislation to modernize the electricity system and make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.)

My opponent talks about job creation, too, but he's against every one of these job-creating measures. Empty talk about jobs and economic isolation won't get anyone hired. The way to create jobs is our pro-growth, pro-entrepreneur agenda. (Applause.)

This economy of ours is going through a time of change, and we're helping people to gain the skills and security to make a good living. All skills start with education. So I worked with Congress to pass the No Child Left Behind Act. This is a good law that is challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's a law that is bringing higher standards and accountability to every public school so that not one single child is left behind. (Applause.)

And there's more to do. We have a plan to help high school students who fall behind in reading and math. We have a plan to help community colleges train workers for the industries that are creating the most new jobs. You see, this administration understands clearly that education is the gateway to a hopeful future, and that gate must be open to all Americans. (Applause.)

We're also working to promote an ownership society in America in which more people own their own homes and build their own savings. We want more people owning their own small businesses. We want people to own and manage their own health care plans. We want younger workers to be able to own and manage their own retirement under Social Security. (Applause.)

I understand this, that when people have solid assets, they gain independence and security and dignity and more control over their own future. I believe in private property so much, I want everybody to have some in America. (Applause.)

On issue after issue, the American people have a clear choice. My opponent is against personal retirement accounts. He's against putting patients in charge of Medicare. He's against tax relief. He seems to be against every idea that gives Americans more authority, more choices, and more control over our own lives. It's the same old Washington mind-set: They'll give the orders, and you will pay the bills. I've got news for the Washington crowd: America has gone beyond that way of thinking, and we're not going back. (Applause.) I trust the people of this country. I trust the people to make the best decisions for their own money, for their own health, for their own retirement.

Our future also depends on America's leadership in this world. The momentum of freedom in our time is strong, but we still face serious dangers. Al Qaeda is wounded, but not broken. Terrorists are testing our will in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regimes of North Korea and Iran are challenging the peace. If America shows weakness and uncertainty in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch. (Applause.) This nation is strong and confident in the cause of freedom. And, today, no friend or enemy doubts the word of the United States of America. (Applause.)

America and our allies gave an ultimatum to the terror regime in Afghanistan. The Taliban chose defiance, and the Taliban are no longer in power. (Applause.) America and our allies gave an ultimatum to the terror regime in Iraq. The dictator chose defiance -- the dictator now sits in a prison cell. (Applause.) September the 11th, 2001, taught a lesson I will never forget: America must confront threats before they fully materialize. (Applause.)

In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information and we saw a threat. Members of Congress looked at the intelligence and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. The previous administration and Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. So we had a choice to make: either to take the word of a madman, or take action to defend America and the world. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.) Thank you.

My opponent admits that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He just didn't support my decision to remove Saddam from power. Maybe he was hoping Saddam would lose the election in Iraq. (Laughter and applause.) We showed the dictator and a watching world that America means what it says. Because our coalition acted, Saddam's torture chambers are closed. (Applause.) Because we acted, Saddam's weapons programs are ended forever. Because we acted, nations like Libya have gotten the message and renounced their own weapons programs. (Applause.) Because we acted, an example of democracy is rising at the very heart of the Middle East. Because we acted, the world is more free, and America is more secure. (Applause.)

We still face thugs and terrorists in Iraq who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the advance of liberty. They know that a free Iraq will be a major defeat in the cause of terror. This coalition of killers is trying to shake our will. They don't understand America. America will never be intimated by thugs and assassins. (Applause.) We are aggressively striking the terrorists in Iraq. We're on the offensive. We'll defeat them there so we don't have to face them in our own country. (Applause.)

We're calling on other nations to help Iraq to build a free society. A free Iraq will make us all more safe. We're standing with the Iraqi people as they assume more of their own defense and move toward self-government. These are not easy tasks, but they are essential tasks. We will finish what we have begun. We will win this essential victory in the war on terror. (Applause.)

On national security, Americans have the clearest possible choice. My opponent says he approves of bold action in the world, but only if other countries don't object. (Laughter.) I'm all for united action, and so are the 34 coalition partners in Iraq right now. Yet America must never outsource America's national security decisions to leaders of other countries. (Applause.)

Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said the war on terror is "far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation." I disagree. Our nation followed this approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts and thought by some to be settled -- but the terrorists were still training in Afghanistan, plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans.

After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. (Applause.) With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got. (Applause.)

At bases across our country and the world, I've had the privilege of meeting with the men and women of our military. These good folks are defending our country. They're sacrificing for our security. I've seen their great decency and their unselfish courage. I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, the cause of freedom is in good hands. (Applause.)

This nation is prosperous and strong, yet, we need to remember that our greatest strength is in the hearts and souls of our citizens. We're strong because of the values we try to live by: courage and compassion, reverence and integrity. We're strong because of the institutions that help give us direction and purpose: families and schools and religious congregations. These values and institutions are fundamental to our lives and they deserve the respect of our government. We stand for the fair treatment of faith-based groups so they can receive federal support for the works of compassion and healing. We will not stand for government discrimination against people of faith. (Applause.)

We stand for welfare reforms that require work and strengthen marriage, which have helped millions of Americans find independence and dignity. We will not stand for any attempt to weaken those reforms and to send people back into lives of dependence. (Applause.) We stand for a culture of life in which every person counts and every person matters. We will not stand for the treatment of any life as a commodity to be experimented upon, exploited or cloned. (Applause.)

We stand for the confirmation of judges who strictly and faithfully interpret the law. (Applause.) We will not stand for judges who undermine democracy by legislating from the bench and try to remake the culture of America by court order. (Applause.)

We stand for a culture of responsibility in America. We're changing the culture of America from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life. (Applause.) If you are fortunate enough to be a mother or a father, you're responsible for loving your child with all your heart. (Applause.) If you're worried about the quality of the education in which you live, you're responsible for doing something about it. (Applause.) If you're a CEO in corporate America, you have a responsibility to tell the truth to your shareholders and your employees. (Applause.) And in this new responsibility society, each of us is responsible for loving our neighbor just like we would like to be loved ourselves. (Applause.)

For all Americans, these years in our history will always stand apart. There are quiet times in the life of a nation when little is expected of its leaders. This is not one of those times. You and I are living in a period when the stakes are high and the challenges are difficult, a time when resolve is needed.

None of us will ever forget that week when one era ended and another began. On September the 14th, 2001, I stood in the ruins of the Twin Towers. I remember a lot about that day. I remember the workers in hard hats who were shouting, "Whatever it takes." I remember the guy who pointed at me and said, "Don't let me down." As we all did that day, these men and women searching through the rubble took it personally. I took it personally. I have a responsibility that goes on. I will never relent in bringing justice to our enemies. I will defend the security of America, whatever it takes. (Applause.)

In these times, I've also been a witness to the character of this nation. Not so long ago, some had their doubts about the American character, our capacity to meet serious challenges, our capacity to serve a cause greater than self-interest. But Americans have given their answer. I've seen the unselfish courage of our troops. I've seen the heroism of Americans in the face of danger. I've seen the spirit of service and compassion renewed in our country. We've all seen our nation unite in common purpose when it mattered most.

We will need all of these qualities for the work ahead. We have a war to win, and the world is counting on us to lead the cause of freedom and peace. We have a duty to spread opportunity to every part of America. This is the work that history has set before us. We welcome it. And we know that for our country, the best days lie ahead.

God bless you all. Thank you all. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040303-16.html

16 posted on 03/04/2004 8:18:32 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

Books Withdrawn

JEDDAH, 4 March 2004 ? The Education Ministry has recalled one million notebooks from schools around the Kingdom because they contain mistakes, including references to the "Persian Gulf," Al-Watan reported yesterday. A map in the notebooks also inaccurately represented Saudi Arabia?s southern border with Yemen, the paper said. It said a senior ministry official had told the agency, which produced the books to halt distribution and withdraw those already handed out and explain how it would rectify the errors.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=40550&d=4&m=3&y=2004&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

Naturally, burn the books. For sure it is the Arabian Golf in Saudi. How many lashes?

17 posted on 03/04/2004 8:20:45 AM PST by AdmSmith

As much as they try to convince everyone....they haven't changed.

18 posted on 03/04/2004 8:37:17 AM PST by nuconvert (CAUTION: I'm an acquaintance of someone labelled :"an obstinate supporter of dangerous fantasies")

Famous young movie editor dies from torture

SMCCDI (Information Service)
Mar 4, 2004

A famous young film editor died of his wounds inflicted during torture after the unsuccesful attempt of doctors to save his life.

Ardeshir Afshinzadeh, aged 25, passed away in Tajrish hospital after his transfer from the regime's paramilitaries prison following his arrest in the demos that rocked the capital at the occasion of the Tabou breaking popular gatherings made during the mourning ritual of Ashura.

Several internal organs of the victims had been smashed due to an intense beating made by Hezbollahi thugs who had stated to the doctors that Afshinzadeh's wounds have resulted as he tried to escape by jumping from a 5th floor window.

It's to note that non of the victims bones were broken during this alleged escape and that his clothes were smelling heavily alchool while no trace of such substance was found in his body.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_5193.shtml

19 posted on 03/04/2004 8:51:35 AM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

20 posted on 03/04/2004 2:12:01 PM PST by DoctorZIn (Until they are Free, "We shall all be Iranians!")

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794


	Elizabeth Leitzell \| Daily Trojan
	Mixed Emotion. The Iranian American Republicans were among the demonstrators who welcomed President Bush to the Shrine Auditorium Wednesday afternoon; they said they support him because he opposes terrorism in Iran.