Thursday, May 13, 2010
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thursday, November 01, 2007
"A speech given by David Horowitz at the University of Wisconsin during Islamo-fascism Awareness Week. Go to the official website for more information."
"The poster above is the official poster advertising the event. The horror that it shows is explained in the full speech and the excerpts below.
The speaker makes it clear throughout his speech that ‘Islamo-fascism’ is distinct and different from Islam, and is simply a term for absolute-power dictators who use Islam as their excuse/cover/justification for ruling over people’s lives with an iron fist.
These Islamofascists want to dictate what each of us can or cannot do according to their personal, narrow definition of Islam. Whether we are Muslim or not, does not matter - they will impose their way of life on us.
Horowitz’s full speech details lots of ties between those most infamous of fascists, Hitler and the Nazis, and the roots of modern Islamo-fascism. He also points out the defining trait of anti-Semitism that runs through both types of fascists.
Horowitz also has plenty of scorn for liberals, who in his opinion are hastening along the advent of Islamo-fascist rule over everyone. And when that happens, liberalism will cease to exist (and liberals will cease to live).
It’s absurdly ironic that liberals are so supportive of Islamo-fascists - depsite the fact that Islamo-fascists are brutally against the very things liberals hold dearest, such as homosexual rights, sexual freedom, feminism, freedom of religion, atheism, free speech and free dress!"
Full speech at Front Page Magazine.:
Excerpt of David Horowitz's Speech:
This evening is not about prejudice against Muslims. On the contrary, this evening is on behalf of all those Muslims who are oppressed by Islamo-Fascism.
If you want to understand what this week is about, here is the poster we designed to announce our events (above). What it shows is a soccer field in Afghanistan. The figure with the AK-47 is a Taliban soldier. And this poor woman, who is about to have her head blown off at point blank range by an AK-47 has been accused of sexual improprieties, which violate Islamic law.
As you may or may not know, in countries where Sharia, which is Islamic law, is imposed by the state, women cannot be witnesses. So this poor woman had no defense. Nor could other women testify in her behalf. Islamic law forbids it. Every person in this photo is a Muslim. The victim is a Muslim.
. . .think of the Muslim community in Algeria where between 150,000 and 200,000 moderate Muslims were slaughtered in the 1990s, by an organization calling itself Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb.
Think about the Muslims in the Sudan who are being slaughtered by a Taliban-like regime, simply because they don’t subscribe to the regime’s version of Islam.
In Iran, just last week, the modesty police issued a new edict that couples can’t hold hands in public. If you want the definition of a totalitarian state, it’s a state that controls every aspect of a person’s life.
Religions, and particularly Islam, are concerned with many aspects of a person’s life. Religion is about morality, about the family, and about social relations. So when interpretations of religious law are enforce by the political state that’s the end of all freedom. It means one set of priests is going to have the power state behind their interpretation of what you can and cannot do. The end result of that process is this poor woman in the photo who is about to have her head blown off by an AK-47 for violating a government edict about her sex life.
That’s really what we intended to do with this week, to make people aware of this problem. I have called it “Islamo-Fascism.” That is not a term designed to say that all Muslims or a majority of Muslims are fascists. In fact a majority of Muslims are either victims of Islamo-Fascists or threatened by them.
But saying that Islamo-Fascism implicates all Muslims make no logical sense. We use the term “Italian Fascism” without assuming that all Italians are fascists. Hitler did not even win a majority of the vote in Germany, yet we use the phrase “German Fascism” without implying that all people of German descent are fascists.
Everyone in this room has either used the phrase “white racism” or read it without objection. Do you mean to call every white person a racist when you use that term?
The hateful attacks on this week are, in fact quite stupid, when you think about what they are claiming. If I intended to come on a college platform and say hateful things about all Muslims, I would be hooted off the stage. No campus organization would invite me to say such things and if I did say them I would never be invited by any campus organization again. Since no one on a college campus is prepared to hear hate speech, why bother to protest it in advance. It’s self-discrediting. Yet we live in such Orwellian times that no one laughs when the left makes these preposterous claims.
So, on the one hand, the hate campaign against us is a very stupid campaign, although it is also malicious. On the other, it is quite sinister. When you are called a racist from one end of the country to another, when you are identified as somebody who is preaching hate against a religious or ethnic or racial group, someone is going to believe those charges. The effect, in other words, is to put a target on your back. Which is why there is so much security present tonight.
The term Islamo-Fascism is, in my view, a useful and justifiable term because of the merger of religion and state in the totalitarian ideology we’re facing. It is also historically based. What we are facing is a global religious movement that is a movement within Islam. It is not to be confused with Islam itself. The Islamo-Fascists want you to confuse them with the Muslim community as a whole. They want to hide behind the Muslim community. And they are inflicting great damage on the Muslim community by doing so. When Ahmadinejad speaks or when Zawahiri speaks, they speak in the name of the Muslim ummah, but they do not actually speak for the Muslim ummah. And that distinction has to be made. What we are facing is a radical force within Islam that originated in Egypt in the 1920s, with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan al-Banna was the founder of this movement, which is a movement of political Islam to seize control of states and impose Sharia, Islamic law, on their populations.
The Muslim Brotherhood attempted to assassinate Nasser. It assassinated Anwar Sadat, and it would probably like to assassinate the present ruler of Egypt, Mubarak – all of them Muslims.
It is claimed by many that the only reason for the attacks on the United States are its policies towards Israel or because of the war in Iraq, or because of George Bush. Bush created the war on terror has become a mantra in some powerful circles of the Democratic Party around George Soros. But there is no basis in fact for these claims. The first leader of the modern Islamo-Fascist movement and the leader of the first Islamo-Fascist state was the Ayatollah Khomeini. It was Khomeni who declared America the Great Satan, and who led crowds a million strong in chants of, “Death to America,” in 1979. And it was Jimmy Carter – not George Bush — who was president when he did that. But Jimmy Carter was a supporter of the Ayatollah and an enemy of the Shah whom he overthrew. Carter accused the Shah of human rights violations and undermined his rule. Carter persuaded the Shah to release Khomeini’s cohorts from prison, and allow Khomeni to return to Iran. Jimmy Carter made possible the Islamic Revolution.
When people say that the United States and its policies are responsible for 9/11, they’re forgetting this history, Jimmy Carter’s support for the very Islamo-fascists who are now attacking us.
In the past twenty-five years, far from being an imperialist oppressor of Muslims, as the Islamo-fascists and the American left would have you believe, the United States saved the lives of millions of Muslims.
When Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, its armies conducted a scorched-earth policy, which means they killed everything in their way. They killed a million Muslims in Afghanistan, until the United States, by providing them with stinger missiles, by providing them with weapons, helped the Mujaheddin to defeat the Soviet Empire. The United States went to war in Kosovo for Albanian Muslims, and saved them from extermination. The United States sent the Army Rangers into Somalia to feed starving Muslims in Somalia, and was attacked there by an Al Qaeda warlord. Al Qaeda and the Islamo-fascist movement have killed more Muslims than all the members of Bush’s “coalition of the willing” and all of Israel’s soldiers put together.
So it is completely absurd to hold Americans responsible for the hatred that is directed against us. It’s completely ridiculous. It is the opposite of the truth.
The hatred against America is hatred of the fact that America is free and supports Muslims who don’t want to submit to the Islamo-fascists’ will.
The Middle East conflict is also misunderstood. The idea is floated about by Jimmy Carter and the Arab haters of Israel that Palestinian Arabs were deprived of their lands, that their lands were stolen, and Palestine is occupied by Israel.
The historical fact is that not only was the land on which Israel was created not part of any Palestinian entity, it wasn’t even controlled by the Arabs themselves. The Middle East adjacent to the Jordan River and extending past the Euphrates was for 400 years controlled by the Ottoman Turks. The Turks, not the Arabs. The Ottoman Empire, which was founded in the 16th Century, came to an end when the Turks picked the wrong side in the First World War — the German side. When you lose a war, the victor gets the spoils. So the imperial powers of Britain and France got to divide up the Ottoman Empire. Britain had promised the Jews the “Palestine Mandate” which they controlled. It was named “Palestine” by the Romans who drove the Jews out and gave the region the name of the enemies of the Jews, the Philistines, who were Greek sailors from the Aegean and not Arab at all. The Arab nomads did not settle in the region of Palestine until centuries later. The British promised this region of the Ottoman empire to the Jews for a national homeland. Jews had lived there for 3,000 years.
The Palestine Mandate was promised to the Jews, but in 1922, Winston Churchill gave 80% of the Mandate to Arabs from the Palestine region. That state is called Jordan. Nearly 70% of the state of Jordan is made up of Palestinians, but they ruled by the Hashemite tribe. You never hear anybody from the Palestinian cause or from the American left, anybody from the ranks of those attacking this event and attacking the state Israel, and attacking the United States calling in the Left – you never hear anyone of them complaining about the oppression of Palestinians in Jordan. Or calling for their liberation. That is because all these attacks on Israel and the United States are motivated by hatred for Israel and the United States, not concern for the Palestinians.
To return to this history, 80% of the Palestine Mandate was given by the Imperial Powers to the Arabs of the Palestine region. The remaining 20% was divided evenly between the Jews living in the Palestine Mandate, and the Arabs living in the Palestine Mandate. The Jewish portion, just 10% of the entire Palestine Mandate and less than 1% of the Arab Midle East, was three little unconnected slivers, the largest of which — 60% of the total – was an arid desert. That was what the UN by an overwhelming majority vote in 1948.
In addition to Israel’s creation by the UN, the Imperial Powers created Jordan Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. All of these states were artificially created by the Imperial Powers out of the Turkish Empire. So the attacks on Israel for stealing Palestinian land are one big lie whose sole purpose is justify the Islamo-fascist campaign to destroy the Jewish nation.
In 1948, instead of accepting the partition of a tiny portion of the land they had been given, the Arab states – Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypty, Iraq, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel in a war which they proclaimed would “push the Jews into the sea.” It was a war of aggression - and they lost. The Arabs have continued that war for the last sixty years.
There were refugees from this war. There were 600,000 Arab refugees. And there were 600,000 Jewish refugees. The Jews fled Iraq, Iran, Morocco and other Arab lands in which they had lived for hundreds of years. In Iraq, the largest ethnic community in Baghdad, for hundreds of years, was the Jews, until the 1930s, when Iraq became a fascist country and massacred the Jews living there and drove the survivors out.
There are over 5 million Palestinian Arabs living in refugee camps today; there are no Jews living in refugee camps. Why is that? Because the state of Israel, re-settled the Jewish refugees, gave them homes, gave them citizenship, and gave them jobs. But the Arab states deliberately kept the Palestinians in refugee camps, refused to allow them to become citizens of Jordan or Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries.
Billions of dollars have been poured into the Arab refugee problem by the United States and Israel and the UN. But all that money has done has been to maintain the refugee problem. There’s a reason for that. It is because the Arab states and the Palestinian leadership want poverty stricken Arabs as cannon fodder for their hateful war against the Jews. That’s what the Middle East conflict is about.
There are one million Arabs who live peacefully in Israel. These Arabs have more rights living in Israel than the Arabs in any Arab state. They vote. They are elected to Israel’s parliament. They have the rights of the only democratic state in the entire Arab world.
Khomeni’s goal was to establish an Islamic state under 7th century Islamic law. Khomeni killed twenty-five times as many Iranians –Muslims — in the first three years of his revolutionary rule than the despised Shah had killed in the 34 years of his. The reason Khomeini hated the Shah is because the Shah allowed women to be educated in Iran for the first time in their history, and allowed them, if they so chose, to remove the veil. The Shah was a dictator, but he was a progressive dictator. And that’s why Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalists hated him, and overthrew him.
This is a warning to you progressives in the audience. This is my gift to you if you will take it. The Islamo-fascists whom you support will devour you in the end.
Before I finish, I want to say something about the Iraq War. Watching the left mobilize to oppose the war, I was reminded of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. The constant complaint of the left at the time was that the United States supported dictators like the Shah because they were anti-communists. If they followed our foreign policy, we didn’t care what they did to people within their borders. That was the Left’s complaint and you heard it over and over and over again — the United States supports dictators.
So it was quite illuminating to me when George Bush set out to overthrow one of those dictators, one of the true monsters of the 20th Century, a man who had murdered 300,000 people. Who do you think he murdered? He murdered Muslims. He murdered mainly Shi’a Muslims. He dropped poison gas on the Kurds. He put Muslims into plastic shredders. His two sons went on a rape rampage, raping and killing Muslim girls. And then Bush came along and overthrew him. And the left hates Bush for that! I watched all of my former comrades go out in the streets to try to save Saddam Hussein, this fascist dictator and mass murderer, from being overthrown.
Now, what is that about? It is about the left’s hatred for America which is greater than its hatred for oppressors like Saddam Hussein. The reason the Left is in a de facto alliance with the Islamo-Fascists is because the ybelieve what the Islamo-fascists believe — that the United States is the Great Satan; and Israel, of course, is the Little Satan. It is their progressive duty to make the United States lose the War on Terror, so the Khomenis of the Middle East can liberate the Muslim world.
The Left has been on the wrong side of battle for freedom for almost 100 years. I think the War in Iraq has been mismanaged, and so has the war at home. The President has failed to explain the war to the American people. But these mistakes don’t negate the fact that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a good deed.
Moreover, the United States cannot afford to lose this war. If we lose the War in Iraq, if we do what Nancy Pelosi or Cindy Sheehan want us to do, which is just to get out, what will happen in Iraq is exactly what happened in Vietnam when we did the same thing. After we left Vietnam to the mercy of the communists, 2.5 million people were slaughtered.
Not only will Moqtadar al-Sadr and the Republican National Guard slaughter every Muslim — every Muslim in Iraq who wanted their freedom, who went to vote, who supported the coalition led by America — but Iraq will wind up in the hands of Ahmadinejad and Iran, and they will go after the other Arab regimes in the region whose Islamic ways are not pure enough.
"For some posts related to the points raised in Horowitz’s speech (and need I reiterate, ‘Islamo-fascism’ is distinct and different from Islam, and is simply a term for absolute-power dictators who use Islam as their excuse/cover/justification for ruling over people’s lives with an iron fist):
More Than 23,000 Terrorists Killed (how the Iraq situation is actually preventing Iraqi Muslims and other people worldwide from more terror attacks. For how this is being accomplished, see 72-year-old Iraqi Spots, Stops and Shoots Suicide Bomber, 72-year-old Iraqi Spots, Stops and Shoots Suicide Bomber and Bomblets Frag Terrorists, Spare Dog.
For the motive, see Iraqi Insurgents Used Kids As Cover Then Killed Them (what the Islamo-fascists believe constitute fair, humane and heroic tactics.
Photos of Brutally Murdered Victims of the Southern Thailand Pattani Insurgency (how Islamo-fascists go about ‘winning hearts and minds’ among the innocent local populace - including Muslims)
Iran Prez Ahmadinejad Sez: “There Are No Homosexuals in Iran” (And Why There Ain’t Any) (Iran gives us a taste of how liberals will immediately be treated if the Islamo-fascists they love-so-much ever come to power)
Nahoul the Terror Bee Teaches Animal, Uh… Kindness, Continue to Learn Holy War With Nahoul the Bee and Hi Kids! Let’s Learn Holy War With Farfur the Mouse! (what the Islamo-fascists find more important to teach young children than maths and science)
Narrow Sighted and Single Minded Criminalizing of War (our very own Dr. Mahathir only denounces Israel and not other flagrant human rigths violations)
What Did the Vietnam War Ever Accomplish? (some info about what happened when the Americans stopped selflessly sacrificing themselves for us ungrateful South-East Asians)
And posts about the liberal lies and propaganda which serve to undermine truth in the name of advancing (among other things) Islamo-fascism:
Malaysiakini: Are US News Agencies Biased Against Palestine?
Mainstream Media Dishonesty - 101 Liberal Media Lies
Media Mythbusters Wiki
All Your Fakes Are Belong to Us
Flat Fatima will Make Your News Stories Become The Truth!
Al Gore: High Commander of War & Peace Hypocrisy
Will the Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up?
Pro General Petraeus, Anti Betray Us Editorial Cartoons "
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
On February 21, 1989, Yusuf Islam addressed students at Kingston University in London about his journey to Islam and was asked about the controversy in the Muslim world and the fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s execution. He replied, “He must be killed. The Qur’an makes it clear - if someone defames the prophet, then he must die.” Newspapers quickly denounced what was seen as Yusuf Islam’s support for the assassination of Rushdie and the next day Yusuf released a statement saying that he was not personally encouraging anybody to be a vigilante, and that he was only stating that blasphemy is a capital offense according to the Qur’an. However, on March 8, 1989, while speaking in London’s Regents Park Mosque, Yusuf Islam was asked by a Christian Science Monitor reporter how he would cope with the idea of killing a writer for writing a book. He is reported to have replied, “In Islam there is a line between, lets say freedom and the line which is then transgressed into immorality and irresponsibility and I think as far as this writer is concerned, unfortunately, he has been irresponsible with his freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It’s got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again.” Two months later Yusuf Islam appeared on a British television court-room style program, Hypotheticals. In the episode, A SATANIC SCENARIO, Stevens/Islam is videoed having this exchange with the moderator and Queen Counsel Geoffrey Robertson . . .
Cat Stevens is dead, Islam killed him off looong ago. You can pick up pamphlets in Mosques all across the U.S. promoting "Yusef Islam's" story of why he converted to Islam in his own words. It's the typical Islamic Cult ploy. Yusef Islam, formerly known as CAT STEVENS isn't on the SUSPECT list for nothing. The man is an Islamic tool for conversion and has been a willing propagandist, Jihad funder and will therefore remain one shady CAT.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
HIDDENITE, N.C. -- Police are investigating an unusual robbery in Hiddenite.
Someone dressed in a burgundy burka walked into the People’s Bank at 3:45 p.m. Tuesday (October 16, 2007), showed the teller a handgun and demanded money.
The robber then took off down N.C. 90 in a burgundy sport utility vehicle.
Authorities are looking into whether this bank robbery can be connected to one in Morganton.
An androgynously dressed person held up a bank there last week.
Officers aren’t sure whether they’re looking for a man or a woman in either case.
Police also think there is a good chance the burka burglar is working with at least one other person, a getaway driver.
Hat Tip: Mosque Watch
Sunday, September 30, 2007
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi forces killed more than 60 insurgent and militia fighters in intense battles over the weekend, with most of the casualties believed to have been al-Qaida fighters, officials said Sunday.
The U.S. Embassy, meanwhile, joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing a nonbinding U.S. Senate resolution seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.
U.S. aircraft killed more than 20 al-Qaida in Iraq fighters who opened fire on an American air patrol northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. command said.
The firefight between U.S. aircraft and the insurgent fighters occurred Saturday about 17 miles northwest of the capital, the military said.
The aircraft observed about 25 al-Qaida insurgents carrying AK-47 assault rifles — one brandishing a rocket-propelled grenade — walking into a palm grove, the military said.
"Shortly after spotting the men, the aircraft were fired upon by the insurgent fighters," it said.
The military did not say what kind of aircraft were involved but the fact that the fighters opened fire suggests they were low-flying Apache helicopters. The command said more than 20 of the group were killed and four vehicles were destroyed. No Iraqi civilians or U.S. soldiers were hurt.
"Coalition forces have dealt significant blows to Al-Qaida Iraq in recent months, including the recent killing of the Tunisian head of the foreign fighter network in Iraq and the blows struck in the past 24 hours," military spokesman Col. Steven Boylan told The Associated Press.
Iraq's Defense Ministry said in an e-mail Sunday afternoon that Iraqi soldiers had killed 44 "terrorists" over the past 24 hours. The operations were centered in Salahuddin and Diyala provinces and around the city of Kirkuk, where the ministry said its soldiers had killed 40 and arrested eight. It said 52 fighters were arrested altogether.
The ministry did not further identify those killed, but use of the word "terrorists" normally indicates al-Qaida.
In a separate operation, U.S. forces killed two insurgents and detained 21 others during weekend operations "to disrupt al-Qaida in Iraq networks in the Tigris River Valley."
Intelligence led to a raid early Sunday that netted what the U.S. military called 15 rogue members of the Mahdi Army militia at an undisclosed Baghdad location.
The mainstream of the militia, the armed wing of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's organization, has been ordered by the religious leader to stop attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.
But many one-time members of the group have split off and are acting independently of al-Sadr's control. Some have gone to Iran for training and are receiving weapons and financing from the Islamic regime in Tehran.
The Senate resolution, adopted last week, proposed reshaping Iraq according to three sectarian or ethnic territories. It calls for a limited central government with the bulk of power going to the country's Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish regions, envisioning a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia. Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat presidential candidate, was a prime sponsor.
In a highly unusual statement, the U.S. Embassy said resolution would seriously hamper Iraq's future stability.
"Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself," the unsigned statement said.
"Iraq's leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. ... attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed," it said.
The statement came just hours after representatives of Iraq's major political parties denounced the Senate proposal.
The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces are running a virtually independent country within Iraq while nominally maintaining relations with Baghdad. They support a formal division, but both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have denounced the proposal.
At a news conference earlier in the day, at least nine Iraqi political parties and party blocs — both Shiite and Sunni — said the Senate resolution would diminish Iraq's sovereignty and said they would try to pass a law to ban any division of the country.
"This proposal was based on the incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of Iraq's past, present and future," according to a statement read at a news conference by Izzat al-Shahbandar, a representative of the secular Iraqi National List.
On Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press that "dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."
Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center and west of the country to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers.
Nevertheless, ethnic and sectarian turmoil have snarled hopes of negotiating such measures, especially given deep divisions on sharing the country's vast oil resources. Oil reserves and existing fields would fall mainly into the hands of Kurds and Shiites if such a division were to occur.
Also Sunday, a judge delayed court proceedings for a second U.S. Army sniper accused in the deaths of two unarmed Iraqi civilians a day after a military panel sentenced a 22-year-old specialist to five months in prison for his role in the killings.
Jorge G. Sandoval was convicted Thursday of planting evidence on one of the unidentified Iraqis killed last spring. He was acquitted of two murder charges.
Sandoval had faced five charges in the deaths of the two unidentified Iraqi men. In dramatic testimony during the four-day court-martial, his colleague, Sgt. Evan Vela, testified he had pulled the trigger and killed one of the men Sandoval was accused of murdering.
Vela, 23, said the sniper team was following orders when it shot the men during two separate incidents near Iskandariyah, a Sunni-dominated area south of Baghdad, on April 27 and May 11.
On Sunday, a military judge postponed a pretrial hearing for Vela for at least a month. Vela's civilian defense lawyer had asked that the hearing be closed to the media because of classified information expected to be discussed.
The U.S. military also announced the death of an American soldier killed Saturday in a roadside bombing and gunfire attack in eastern Baghdad.
_Ramadan Mubarek Jihadi Scum__
AP correspondents Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Katarina Kratovac and Kim Curtis contributed to this report.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Full text of the top secret transcript of the conversation between US President George W. Bush and Spain’s Prime Minister José Maria Aznar at Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, as printed in the Madrid daily newspaper El País on September 26, 2007 (translation: José Guardia)
President Bush: We are in favor of pursuing a second resolution by the Security Council, and we would like to have it quickly. We would like to announce it on Monday or Tuesday [March 24 or 25, 2003].
PM Aznar: Better on Tuesday, after the meeting of the European Union’s General Affairs Council. It’s important to keep the momentum of the EU Summit resolution [in Brussels on Monday, February 17, 2003]. We would prefer to wait until Tuesday.
Bush: It could be on Monday afternoon, considering the time difference. Next week, in any case. We envision a resolution that doesn’t contain mandatory elements, that doesn’t mention the use of force, and that states that Saddam Hussein has been unable to comply with his obligations. Such a resolution could be voted for by many. It would be similar to the one for Kosovo [on June 10, 1999].
Aznar: Would it be submitted to the Security Council before, and independently of, a parallel declaration?
Condoleezza Rice: Actually, there wouldn’t be a parallel declaration. We are thinking about a resolution that is as simple as possible, without many details about compliance that could be used by Saddam Hussein as steps not to comply. We are talking with Blix [chief of UN inspection] and others in his team about items that could be in the resolution.
Bush: Saddam won’t change and will keep playing games. The moment of getting rid of him has arrived. That’s it. As for me, from now on, I’ll try to use the most subtle rhetoric I can, while we look for the resolution to be approved. If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in. Saddam is not disarming. We must catch him right now. We have shown an incredible amount of patience until now. We have two weeks. In two weeks, our military will be ready. I think we’ll achieve a second resolution. In the Security Council, we have three African countries [Cameroon, Angola, Guinea], the Chileans, the Mexicans. I’ll talk with all of them, also with Putin, naturally. We’ll be in Baghdad at the end of March. There’s a 15% chance that Saddam will be dead by then or will have flown. But these possibilities won’t be there until we have shown our resolution. The Egyptians are talking with Saddam Hussein. It seems he has hinted he’d be willing to leave if he’s allowed to take 1 billion dollars and all the information on WMDs. Ghadaffi told Berlusconi that Saddam wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in these circumstances there is a big chance that he’ll get killed.
We would like to act with the mandate of the UN. If we act militarily, we’ll do it with great precision and focus on our targets to as high a degree as possible. We’ll decimate the loyal troops, and the regular army will quickly know what it’s all about. We sent a very clear message to Saddam Hussein’s generals: we will treat them as war criminals. We know they have stocked big amounts of dynamite to blow up the bridges and other infrastructure, and the oil wells. We are planning to take control of those wells very soon. Also, the Saudis will help us by putting as much oil as necessary on the market. We are developing a very strong aid package. We can win without destruction. We are already working on the post-Saddam Iraq, and I think there’s a basis for a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and a relatively strong civil society. It could be organized as a federation. Meanwhile we’re doing all we can to fulfill the political needs of our friends and allies.
Aznar: It’s very important to have that second resolution. It will be very different to act with or without it. It will be very advisable to have a sufficient majority in the Security Council backing that resolution. In fact, having that majority is more important than whether some country vetoes. We think that the resolution should, among other things, clearly state that Saddam Hussein has squandered his opportunity.
Bush: Yes, of course. That would be better to mention than “the necessary means.”
Aznar: Saddam Hussein hasn’t cooperated, hasn’t disarmed - we should summarize all his non-compliance and make a more elaborate message. That, for example, would allow Mexico to change [its opposition].
Bush: The resolution will be made in a way that can help you. I don’t care much about the actual content.
Aznar: We’ll send you some text.
Bush: We don’t have any text. We only have one goal: that Saddam must disarm. We can’t allow Saddam to drag his heels until the summer. After all, he has had four months in this last stage, and that’s more than enough time to disarm.
Aznar: Such text would help us to be in a position to introduce the resolution [at the Security Council], to be its co-authors, and to convince many people to sign it.
Aznar: I’m meeting Chirac next Wednesday [February 16]. The resolution will be circulating by now.
Bush: I think this is a great idea. Chirac knows the situation perfectly. His intelligence services have explained it all to him. The Arabs are sending Chirac a very clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he is “Mister Arab,” and the truth is that he’s making their lives impossible. But I don’t want any rivalry with Chirac. We certainly have different points of view, but I’d like that to be all. Give him my best regards. True! The less rivalry he feels there is between us, the better it’ll be for us all.
Aznar: How will the resolution and the report by inspectors work with each other?
Rice: Actually there won’t be a report on February 28; the inspectors will submit a written report on March 1, and they won’t appear before the Security Council until March 6 or 7, 2003. We don’t have high hopes about that report. Just like on previous occasions, they’ll cover their bases. My impression is that Blix will be more negative now about the Iraqis’ intention. After they appear at the Security Council, we forecast a vote one week later. Meanwhile, the Iraqis will try to convince that they’re complying. It won’t be true and it won’t be enough, even though they’ll likely announce the destruction of some missiles.
Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We must put an end to it.
Aznar: I agree, but it would be good to have as many people on board as possible. Be a little patient.
Bush: I’ve run out of patience. I won’t go further than mid-March.
Aznar: I’m not asking you to have infinite patience. I’m just asking you to try as hard as possible to make everything work.
Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola and Cameroon must know that it’s US security at play and that they must act according to their friendship to us. [Chilean president Ricardo] Lagos must know that the Free Trade Agreement is pending ratification in the Senate and that a negative attitude on this issue could jeopardize that ratification. Angola is receiving funds from the Millennium Account that could also be compromised. And Putin must know that his position is endangering Russia’s relationship with the United States.
Aznar: Tony [Blair] would like to wait until March 14.
Bush: I prefer March 10. This is like the good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t mind being the bad cop and letting Blair be the good cop.
Aznar: Is it true that there’s a chance that Saddam will go into exile?
Bush: Yes, there is. There’s even a chance that he’ll be assassinated.
Aznar: An exile with some kind of guarantees?
Bush: No guarantees. He’s a thief, a terrorist, a war criminal. Compared to Saddam, Milosevic would be a Mother Teresa. When we go in, we are going to discover many more crimes, and we’ll take him to the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Saddam Hussein believes he has escaped. He thinks that France and Germany have stopped the process of his prosecution. He also thinks that last week’s anti-war demonstrations [Saturday, February 15] protect him. And he believes I’m weakened. But people around him know that things are totally different. They know their future is in exile or in a coffin. This is why it’s so important to keep the pressure up. Ghaddafi is indirectly telling us that this is the only thing that can finish him. Saddam’s only strategy is delay, delay, delay.
Aznar: Actually, the best success would be to win the game without firing a single shot when entering Baghdad.
Bush: To me, it would be the best outcome. I don’t want war. I know what war is like. I know the death and destruction they bring. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and wives of the dead. Of course, for us [a diplomatic solution] would be the best one. Also, it would save 50 billion dollars.
Aznar: We need you to help us with our public opinion.
Bush: We will do all we can. On Wednesday, I’m going to talk about the situation in the Middle East, proposing a new peace system that you already know about, and about weapons of mass destruction, the benefits of a free society, and I’ll put Iraq’s history in a bigger context. That may help you.
Aznar: What we are doing is a very profound change for Spain and the Spanish citizens. We are changing the last 200 years of the country’s politics.
Bush: I’m guided by a historical sense of responsibility, as you are. When history judges us in a few years, I don’t want people wondering why Bush, Aznar, or Blair didn’t confront their responsibilities. At the end of the day, what people want is to enjoy freedom. A short time ago, in Romania, I was reminded of Ceaucescu’s example: it only took a woman to call him a liar for the whole regime to come crumbling down. It’s the irrepressible power of freedom. I’m convinced I’ll achieve the resolution.
Aznar: That’s better than good.
Bush: I made the decision of going to the Security Council. In spite of some internal disagreements within my administration, I told my people that we needed to work with our friends. It will be great to have a second resolution.
Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.
Bush: I’m optimistic because I believe I’m doing the right thing. I am at peace with myself. We have the responsibility of facing a serious threat to peace. It irks me tremendously to contemplate the insensitivity of Europeans toward the suffering that Saddam inflicts on the Iraqis. Maybe because he’s dark-skinned, distant, and Muslim, many Europeans think that all this doesn’t matter. I will never forget what Solana [European High Representative of the Common Foreign and Security Policy] asked me once: why do Americans think that Europeans are anti-Semitic and unable to confront their responsibilities? That defensive attitude is terrible. I must admit that I have a magnificent relationship with Kofi Annan.
Aznar: He shares your ethical concerns.
Bush: The more Europeans attack me, the stronger I am at home.
Aznar: We should try to bring together your strength with the support of Europeans.