Pakistan's Russian Roulette of Terrorism
Foreign policy analyst Subodh Atal warns that the West is playing a dangerous game in Pakistan.
October 13, 2006
Even as the Taliban regain strength in Afghanistan and wage an insurgency nearly as fierce as in Iraq, the hub of terrorism in the subcontinent has shifted to Pakistan. A series of international terrorism plots uncovered in the U.S., U.K. and Australia has been hatched in, or linked to Pakistan. In the most notorious such plot, British police arrested several suspects planning to use liquid explosives aboard commercial airliners flying from Britain to the United States.
The inability or unwillingness of Pakistani authorities to clamp down on extremist Islam is evident in a recent deal signed by the Pakistani authorities and local militias in Waziristan, which cedes the key province bordering Pakistan to pro-Taliban forces. The deal creates a two-pronged threat -- enabling freer passage to Taliban extremists across the Afghan border, and creating potential sanctuaries for Al Qaeda-related international terrorists. To the east, Pakistani extremist groups continue to foster attacks in Indian Kashmir as well as major cities across the rest of India. The links among the extremist groups, hard-line clerics and Pakistan's military and intelligence services, in a nation infiltrated by Taliban and Al Qaeda, imply that Pakistan could continue to serve as a nucleus for international terrorism activity.
Among the most dangerous of the Pakistani extremist groups are Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Laskhar-e-Toiba, was formed in 1986 as a brainchild of Abdullah Azzam, Osama Bin Laden's political and religious mentor. The group's sprawling headquarters complex near Lahore in eastern Pakistan is "a coordination center for its organizational, jihadi and educational activities", as reported in the Jamestown Foundation in 2005. Until 2001, the complex was the venue for immense annual gatherings attended by hundreds of jihadi. Members of the group are reported to have sheltered Al Qaeda operatives fleeing post-9/11 operations in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002. Lashkar imprints have been uncovered in terrorist attacks in major cities across India, as well as a number of plots in countries from Australia to the United States, where arrests and convictions in Virginia and California confirm the group's intercontinental reach.
Pakistani journalist Amir Mir, in his book The True Face of Jehadis: Inside Pakistan's Network of Terror, points out that Laskhar-e-Toiba is a favorite of the ISI among all the terrorist groups operating in Pakistan. Mir's book describes Lashkar activists "distributing pamphlets and periodicals preaching the virtues of jehad in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Kosovo and Eritrea, besides vowing to plant the flag of Islam in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi."
Jaish founder Masood Azhar, established the group in 2002 after his release by India in return for passengers of a hijacked Indian Airlines jet, vowing to destroy the United States and India. Azhar is related by marriage to Rashid Rauf, a key suspect in the London airliner bombing plot. Another notorious member of the group, Sheikh Saeed Omar, may be a critical link tying together Pakistani extremist groups, Al Qaeda and the Pakistani intelligence services. Credible reports suggests Omar's role in the financing of the 9/11 hijackers. International counter-terrorism agencies have been denied access to Omar, who was jailed in Pakistan after being tied to the high profile killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
The infiltration of Pakistan's state by extremists goes far beyond the presence of a few international terrorist groups, however. Islamic radicals have co-opted political parties, including some allied to Musharraf himself, as well as social networks, charities, and businesses. Numerous reports point towards radical links of the nation's military and intelligence services. Noted columnist Steve Coll described this infrastructure as part of "what Pakistan has become as a state and society", in a discussion on the PBS show NewsHour.
Compounding Pakistan's terrorism problem is the nation's history of proliferation of nuclear weapons technology to a number of unstable nations, including Iran, Libya and North Korea. Such activities, which amount to the dangerous trading of the nation's strategic arsenal, must have had at least tacit approval and knowledge of the establishment. Such fears are reinforced by reports that Pakistani nuclear scientists have had contacts with both Osama Bin Laden and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
While intense international counter-terrorism efforts strive to track down and stop plots originating out of Pakistan, the sheer number of such plots pose a significant threat. Given the nation's explosive mix of Islamic extremism intertwined with state institutions, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a pattern of nuclear proliferation, the game of Russian roulette being played out in Pakistan is perhaps the most dangerous counter-terrorism challenge in the world today.
Since 9/11, the United States has depended on the Musharraf regime for tackling the terrorism problem originating from Pakistan. However, under Musharraf's rule, the Pakistani military has continued to hold sway over the nation's politics with Islamist support, and little progress has been made towards moving the country away from its extremist path. Husain Haqqani, Director of the Center of International Relations at Boston University, and ex-advisor to several Pakistani prime ministers describes the extent of the problem in his book, Pakistan, Between Mosque and Military. According to Haqqani, "Under military leadership, Pakistan has defined its national objective as wresting Kashmir from India and in recent years, establishing a client regime in Afghanistan. Unless Islamabad's objectives are redefined as focusing on economic prosperity and popular participation in governance -- which the military as an institution remains reluctant to do -- the state will continue to turn to Islam as a national unifier."
Unquestioning western support, including considerable financial and military aid, has acted as an enabler for Musharraf and the Pakistan military to continue to steer the nation down the same path. Many critical long-term goals, such as rooting out of intolerance from Pakistani madrassa and public school curricula, have not been realized five years after 9/11, even as extremist groups tied to the Al Qaeda and Taleban remain entrenched in the country.
Without a transitioning back towards democracy, and away from extremism and domination of the military, Pakistan will continue to act as a hub of international terrorism and a destabilizing influence in the region. As Haqqani points out in his book, "The United States has sought short term gains from its relationship with Pakistan, inadvertently accentuating that country's problems in the process." A sustained end to the extremism and terrorism centered in Pakistan may require a significant overhaul of policy. Specifically, the United States should move away from its over-dependence on a general who has failed to deliver on many of his promises, and instead support the nation's mainstream parties that have been sidelined since Musharraf's coup in 1999. Washington and others should also consider tying external aid to specific objectives such as the closing down of terrorist camps and measurable action against Taliban militants.
Subodh Atal is an independent foreign policy analyst based near Washington, D.C.
Kashmir Herald : Pakistan's Russian Roulette of Terrorism
Friday, October 13, 2006
Filed under
Afghanistan,
Iran,
Iraq,
Lahore,
Pakistan,
Rashid Rauf,
Taliban,
Waziristan
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, October 13, 2006
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : General’s Remarks on Iraq Cause Stir in Britain
Friday, October 13, 2006
General’s Remarks on Iraq Cause Stir in Britain
By ALAN COWELL | October 13, 2006
ST ANDREWS, Scotland, Oct. 14 – The British government sought today to defuse an embarrassing public debate over remarks by its top military commander that Britain should withdraw its troops from Iraq ‘’sometime soon.”
The comments were interpreted by some government critics as a challenge to the authority of Prime Minister Tony Blair since they seemed to be a direct contradiction of his insistence that a retreat from Iraq would be ”a craven act of surrender.”
The officer, General Sir Richard Dannatt, modified some of his remarks in a series of radio and television interviews to expand on his comments in The Daily Mail tabloid. But he did not completely retract his assessment that the presence of British forces in Iraq ‘’exacerbated” the violence there.
‘’I have withdrawn none of the comments that I have made,” he said in a radio interview. ‘’I have given a little more explanation about what I meant by ’sometime soon’; that’s not backtracking.”
The dispute overshadowed Mr. Blair’s efforts at this Scottish golf resort to wrest a political settlement in Northern Ireland from the province’s fractious parties. Mr Blair and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, are co-hosting a major gathering of Northern Ireland leaders including Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.
At a briefing here, Mr Blair’s spokesman said the general’s remarks following his Daily Mail interview showed there was ‘’not a cigarette paper between” the solider and Mr Blair.
‘’He said we are going to see this through. He said: I’m on record saying we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. He also said that he remains committed to the vision of a unitary state in Iraq with a democratically elected government and security forces that underpin that government,” the spokesman said, referring to the general.
The spokesman, who is not identified in public under civil service customs, declined to say whether the British authorities had been in touch with the White House over the general’s comments, which coincided with other news likely to strengthen opponents of the war.
An inquest in Oxford, England, found today that Terry Lloyd, a British television war correspondent killed in Iraq in March, 2003, had been ‘’unlawfully killed” by United States forces who opened fire on a vehicle carrying the wounded reporter away from a battlefield.
The coroner in Oxford, Andrew Walker, said the American troops should not have fired on the vehicle. Mr Lloyd was working as a ‘’unilateral” journalist, meaning he was not embedded with the allied forces moving against Saddam Hussein. The inquest saw graphic video footage of the fighting.
Britain’s National Union of Journalists called Mr Lloyd’s death a ‘’war crime” and Mr Walker, the coroner, said he would write to the attorney general urging him to prosecute the killers. In the fighting, Mr Lloyd’s Lebanese translator, Hussein Osman, also died and French cameraman, Fred Nerac, is still missing, presumed dead.
General Dannatt’s comments drew widespread approval among anti-war legislators and campaigners and on unofficial websites used by military bloggers, including soldiers in the field. Britain has some 7,000 troops based primarily around Basra in the south of the country.
In the newspaper interview, General Dannatt said British soldiers should leave Iraq ‘’sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”
General Dannatt told the BBC this morning in a radio interview: ‘’It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha.”
‘’My intention is particularly to speak up for what is right for the Army. That is my job. That is my constituency,” he said, apparently alluding to the suggestion by some soldiers that the army is overstretched with major combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the same radio show, Col. Tim Collins, who fought in Iraq in 2003 said the general’s comments had offered a ‘’refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feels.”
‘’There comes a time when the realization on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out,” Colonel Collins said.
In an interview with Sky News, General Dannatt insisted:‘’We are not on the run; we are not hauling our colors down. We are going to see this thing through but we have got to get on with it; we can’t be there for years and years in the sorts of numbers we are.”
‘’We all recognize that. There is nothing new in what I am saying there and that’s what I mean by ’sometime soon’: when the mission is substantially done,” he said. ‘’That is what our aim is. But it is to leave sometime soon when the mission is done.”
By ALAN COWELL | October 13, 2006
ST ANDREWS, Scotland, Oct. 14 – The British government sought today to defuse an embarrassing public debate over remarks by its top military commander that Britain should withdraw its troops from Iraq ‘’sometime soon.”
The comments were interpreted by some government critics as a challenge to the authority of Prime Minister Tony Blair since they seemed to be a direct contradiction of his insistence that a retreat from Iraq would be ”a craven act of surrender.”
The officer, General Sir Richard Dannatt, modified some of his remarks in a series of radio and television interviews to expand on his comments in The Daily Mail tabloid. But he did not completely retract his assessment that the presence of British forces in Iraq ‘’exacerbated” the violence there.
‘’I have withdrawn none of the comments that I have made,” he said in a radio interview. ‘’I have given a little more explanation about what I meant by ’sometime soon’; that’s not backtracking.”
The dispute overshadowed Mr. Blair’s efforts at this Scottish golf resort to wrest a political settlement in Northern Ireland from the province’s fractious parties. Mr Blair and his Irish counterpart, Bertie Ahern, are co-hosting a major gathering of Northern Ireland leaders including Gerry Adams, the head of Sinn Fein, and Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party.
At a briefing here, Mr Blair’s spokesman said the general’s remarks following his Daily Mail interview showed there was ‘’not a cigarette paper between” the solider and Mr Blair.
‘’He said we are going to see this through. He said: I’m on record saying we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. He also said that he remains committed to the vision of a unitary state in Iraq with a democratically elected government and security forces that underpin that government,” the spokesman said, referring to the general.
The spokesman, who is not identified in public under civil service customs, declined to say whether the British authorities had been in touch with the White House over the general’s comments, which coincided with other news likely to strengthen opponents of the war.
An inquest in Oxford, England, found today that Terry Lloyd, a British television war correspondent killed in Iraq in March, 2003, had been ‘’unlawfully killed” by United States forces who opened fire on a vehicle carrying the wounded reporter away from a battlefield.
The coroner in Oxford, Andrew Walker, said the American troops should not have fired on the vehicle. Mr Lloyd was working as a ‘’unilateral” journalist, meaning he was not embedded with the allied forces moving against Saddam Hussein. The inquest saw graphic video footage of the fighting.
Britain’s National Union of Journalists called Mr Lloyd’s death a ‘’war crime” and Mr Walker, the coroner, said he would write to the attorney general urging him to prosecute the killers. In the fighting, Mr Lloyd’s Lebanese translator, Hussein Osman, also died and French cameraman, Fred Nerac, is still missing, presumed dead.
General Dannatt’s comments drew widespread approval among anti-war legislators and campaigners and on unofficial websites used by military bloggers, including soldiers in the field. Britain has some 7,000 troops based primarily around Basra in the south of the country.
In the newspaper interview, General Dannatt said British soldiers should leave Iraq ‘’sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.”
General Dannatt told the BBC this morning in a radio interview: ‘’It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha.”
‘’My intention is particularly to speak up for what is right for the Army. That is my job. That is my constituency,” he said, apparently alluding to the suggestion by some soldiers that the army is overstretched with major combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the same radio show, Col. Tim Collins, who fought in Iraq in 2003 said the general’s comments had offered a ‘’refreshing and very honest insight into what the Army generally feels.”
‘’There comes a time when the realization on the ground is that the people of Iraq do resent foreign intervention and there comes a time when we have got to look forward to when we can hand it over to the Iraqis for them to sort out,” Colonel Collins said.
In an interview with Sky News, General Dannatt insisted:‘’We are not on the run; we are not hauling our colors down. We are going to see this thing through but we have got to get on with it; we can’t be there for years and years in the sorts of numbers we are.”
‘’We all recognize that. There is nothing new in what I am saying there and that’s what I mean by ’sometime soon’: when the mission is substantially done,” he said. ‘’That is what our aim is. But it is to leave sometime soon when the mission is done.”
Filed under
Afghanistan,
Blair,
Iraq
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, October 13, 2006
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Toronto Star : Ignatieff remark costs him top aide
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Ignatieff remark costs him top aide
by SEAN GORDON | QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF | October 12, 2006
MONTREAL — The Toronto co-chair of Liberal leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff's campaign has abruptly quit after the candidate labelled Israel's summer bombing of the Lebanese town of Qana a "war crime."
Thornhill MP Susan Kadis, a former Liberal GTA caucus chair, issued a statement castigating Ignatieff and indicating she could no longer support him through what has burgeoned into a political furor.
"Michael is an intelligent person and I would think that he would have a better handle on the Middle East given his years of experience on human rights and international law," Kadis said, adding, "I find his comments very troubling given the fact that the Israeli response came in light of the unprovoked brazen kidnappings by Hezbollah of Israeli soldiers."
Ignatieff's comments, made on a French-language Radio-Canada show this past Sunday, mark the second time he has faced embarrassing questions over the incidents at Qana.
In an interview with the Star in August, Ignatieff suggested the civilian deaths in the town were the by-product of a "dirty war" and that he was "not losing sleep" over the attack. Those comments were poorly received, especially in Quebec, where Ignatieff was painted as unfeeling, and he later acknowledged he had erred in making them.
The latest controversy involves a question asked during Ignatieff's 20-minute appearance on Tout le monde en parle, Quebec's top-rated talk show, where he was asked to explain his comments from last August.
"I demonstrated a lack of compassion, it was a mistake. And when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it. And I admit it, because I was a human rights professor, and I'm a professor of the laws of war, and what happened at Qana was a war crime. I should have said that, it's clear," Ignatieff said.
The July 30 incident is considered a war crime in the Arab world, a notion that Israel stoutly disputes.
At a news conference in his Etobicoke-Lakeshore constituency office yesterday, Ignatieff told reporters Kadis is a "personal friend and valued caucus colleague," adding that "her decision causes me pain, but I understand and respect it."
It's not yet clear what effect his latest comments will have on the leadership race he currently leads, and which won't be decided until the first weekend in December.
Candidates will take part in the final leadership debate on Sunday in Toronto.
Leadership rival Bob Rae said he was surprised by Ignatieff's sortie, and said it constituted "a bit of a swing" from his previous position, which supported Israel's military response to Hezbollah attacks last summer.
"I don't think they were calculated comments, but now Michael will have to consider them. It's not wise to rush to judgment ... as Michael well knows the term `war crime' is bound to stir strong reactions," said Rae, who currently sits second behind Ignatieff, his former university roommate, in terms of committed delegates.
Rae wouldn't characterize the Qana bombing as a war crime, simply calling it a "terrible tragedy," and adding he will leave it to a civilian inquiry to draw the appropriate conclusions.
Officials from other campaigns expressed similar sentiments, and while the public reactions will likely be as even-handed as Rae's, it's clear Ignatieff's rivals see an opportunity to claw into his support.
Ignatieff's most recent statements have also infuriated several prominent Jewish groups, which called on him to immediately withdraw the contention.
The Canada-Israel Committee sent a toughly worded letter to Ignatieff to "express profound concern" over the comments that were "explicitly anchored in your expertise in international law." The group requested a clarification in both official languages, and added "should you choose to offer such a clarification, we will undertake to circulate it widely within the pro-Israel community. Should you choose not to issue a statement, we would feel obliged to convey that message to our constituency as well."
Ignatieff sought to stem the burgeoning crisis by issuing a clarification and then holding the news conference to further explain his position.
In both instances, the former Harvard human rights scholar said he has been "a lifelong friend of Israel" and tried to nuance his position by saying he strongly supports Israel's right to self-defence.
"I believe that war crimes were committed in the war in Lebanon, I don't think there's any question about it, and war crimes were visited on Israeli civilians and they were visited on Lebanese civilians," he told the news conference.
"We've got to be determined as Canadians to do whatever we can to make sure that military solutions are not sought in this conflict because the consequences are just more civilian death."
Those comments did little to mollify the Canada-Israel Committee. An official with the group told the Star that it did not consider his explanation sufficient.
"While we're gratified that Mr. Ignatieff recognizes and extends support for Israel, a democratic state, in any conflict with what he calls a terrorist militia ... his statement simply does not address the issue that we raised, namely that of war crimes," said Shimon Fogel, the group's national executive director.
The Israel Defence Forces conducted an internal inquiry that found a pair of bombs were dropped on the town in error, although it pointed out residents in the area had been forewarned of air raids.
"The IDF operated according to information that the building was not inhabited by civilians and was being used as a hiding place for terrorists," the report read. "Had the information indicated that civilians were present in the building the attack would not have been carried out."
With files from Linda Diebel and Canadian Press
by SEAN GORDON | QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF | October 12, 2006
MONTREAL — The Toronto co-chair of Liberal leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff's campaign has abruptly quit after the candidate labelled Israel's summer bombing of the Lebanese town of Qana a "war crime."
Thornhill MP Susan Kadis, a former Liberal GTA caucus chair, issued a statement castigating Ignatieff and indicating she could no longer support him through what has burgeoned into a political furor.
"Michael is an intelligent person and I would think that he would have a better handle on the Middle East given his years of experience on human rights and international law," Kadis said, adding, "I find his comments very troubling given the fact that the Israeli response came in light of the unprovoked brazen kidnappings by Hezbollah of Israeli soldiers."
Ignatieff's comments, made on a French-language Radio-Canada show this past Sunday, mark the second time he has faced embarrassing questions over the incidents at Qana.
In an interview with the Star in August, Ignatieff suggested the civilian deaths in the town were the by-product of a "dirty war" and that he was "not losing sleep" over the attack. Those comments were poorly received, especially in Quebec, where Ignatieff was painted as unfeeling, and he later acknowledged he had erred in making them.
The latest controversy involves a question asked during Ignatieff's 20-minute appearance on Tout le monde en parle, Quebec's top-rated talk show, where he was asked to explain his comments from last August.
"I demonstrated a lack of compassion, it was a mistake. And when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it. And I admit it, because I was a human rights professor, and I'm a professor of the laws of war, and what happened at Qana was a war crime. I should have said that, it's clear," Ignatieff said.
The July 30 incident is considered a war crime in the Arab world, a notion that Israel stoutly disputes.
At a news conference in his Etobicoke-Lakeshore constituency office yesterday, Ignatieff told reporters Kadis is a "personal friend and valued caucus colleague," adding that "her decision causes me pain, but I understand and respect it."
It's not yet clear what effect his latest comments will have on the leadership race he currently leads, and which won't be decided until the first weekend in December.
Candidates will take part in the final leadership debate on Sunday in Toronto.
Leadership rival Bob Rae said he was surprised by Ignatieff's sortie, and said it constituted "a bit of a swing" from his previous position, which supported Israel's military response to Hezbollah attacks last summer.
"I don't think they were calculated comments, but now Michael will have to consider them. It's not wise to rush to judgment ... as Michael well knows the term `war crime' is bound to stir strong reactions," said Rae, who currently sits second behind Ignatieff, his former university roommate, in terms of committed delegates.
Rae wouldn't characterize the Qana bombing as a war crime, simply calling it a "terrible tragedy," and adding he will leave it to a civilian inquiry to draw the appropriate conclusions.
Officials from other campaigns expressed similar sentiments, and while the public reactions will likely be as even-handed as Rae's, it's clear Ignatieff's rivals see an opportunity to claw into his support.
Ignatieff's most recent statements have also infuriated several prominent Jewish groups, which called on him to immediately withdraw the contention.
The Canada-Israel Committee sent a toughly worded letter to Ignatieff to "express profound concern" over the comments that were "explicitly anchored in your expertise in international law." The group requested a clarification in both official languages, and added "should you choose to offer such a clarification, we will undertake to circulate it widely within the pro-Israel community. Should you choose not to issue a statement, we would feel obliged to convey that message to our constituency as well."
Ignatieff sought to stem the burgeoning crisis by issuing a clarification and then holding the news conference to further explain his position.
In both instances, the former Harvard human rights scholar said he has been "a lifelong friend of Israel" and tried to nuance his position by saying he strongly supports Israel's right to self-defence.
"I believe that war crimes were committed in the war in Lebanon, I don't think there's any question about it, and war crimes were visited on Israeli civilians and they were visited on Lebanese civilians," he told the news conference.
"We've got to be determined as Canadians to do whatever we can to make sure that military solutions are not sought in this conflict because the consequences are just more civilian death."
Those comments did little to mollify the Canada-Israel Committee. An official with the group told the Star that it did not consider his explanation sufficient.
"While we're gratified that Mr. Ignatieff recognizes and extends support for Israel, a democratic state, in any conflict with what he calls a terrorist militia ... his statement simply does not address the issue that we raised, namely that of war crimes," said Shimon Fogel, the group's national executive director.
The Israel Defence Forces conducted an internal inquiry that found a pair of bombs were dropped on the town in error, although it pointed out residents in the area had been forewarned of air raids.
"The IDF operated according to information that the building was not inhabited by civilians and was being used as a hiding place for terrorists," the report read. "Had the information indicated that civilians were present in the building the attack would not have been carried out."
With files from Linda Diebel and Canadian Press
Guardian : Man admits plotting terror outrages
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Man admits plotting terror outrages
Press Association | October 12, 2006
A British Muslim was facing a lengthy jail sentence after admitting plotting to murder people in terrorist outrages on both sides of the Atlantic.
Dhiren Barot, of Willesden, north London, planned to carry out explosions at financial institutions in Washington, New York and Newark, including the New York Stock Exchange, which were "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible", Woolwich Crown Court heard.
He also plotted to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos" in one of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK.
In one of them, the 34-year-old, who moved to Britain with his parents when he was one, planned to blow up three limousines "packed" with gas cylinders and explosives in underground car parks, the court heard.
Barot, who is thought to have been raised Hindu before converting to Islam as an adult, entered his guilty plea on Thursday morning but reporting restrictions were only lifted by Mr Justice Butterfield in the afternoon.
Edmund Lawson QC, for the Crown, outlined the defendant's basis of plea. He said: "Mr Barot has indicated that he pleads guilty on the basis that count one concerns both the US and the UK.
"Your Lordship will recall that there were plans or proposals that were found by the police on the computer after the arrests of August 2004; being plans for attacks on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York and the Prudential buildings in Newark. These being plans ... to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible."
Mr Lawson said the plot to blow up the limousines - known as the Gas Limos Project - was planned by Barot to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of attacks in the UK. The barrister said that by pleading guilty, Barot "makes no admission with regard to the involvement of any of his seven co-defendants in the conspiracy".
Barot, who went to respected Kingsbury High School, north London, had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes. Mr Justice Butterfield ordered them to lie on the file. Seven other men are due to stand trial next year.
Barot will be sentenced at a later date.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Press Association | October 12, 2006
A British Muslim was facing a lengthy jail sentence after admitting plotting to murder people in terrorist outrages on both sides of the Atlantic.
Dhiren Barot, of Willesden, north London, planned to carry out explosions at financial institutions in Washington, New York and Newark, including the New York Stock Exchange, which were "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible", Woolwich Crown Court heard.
He also plotted to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos" in one of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK.
In one of them, the 34-year-old, who moved to Britain with his parents when he was one, planned to blow up three limousines "packed" with gas cylinders and explosives in underground car parks, the court heard.
Barot, who is thought to have been raised Hindu before converting to Islam as an adult, entered his guilty plea on Thursday morning but reporting restrictions were only lifted by Mr Justice Butterfield in the afternoon.
Edmund Lawson QC, for the Crown, outlined the defendant's basis of plea. He said: "Mr Barot has indicated that he pleads guilty on the basis that count one concerns both the US and the UK.
"Your Lordship will recall that there were plans or proposals that were found by the police on the computer after the arrests of August 2004; being plans for attacks on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York and the Prudential buildings in Newark. These being plans ... to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible."
Mr Lawson said the plot to blow up the limousines - known as the Gas Limos Project - was planned by Barot to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of attacks in the UK. The barrister said that by pleading guilty, Barot "makes no admission with regard to the involvement of any of his seven co-defendants in the conspiracy".
Barot, who went to respected Kingsbury High School, north London, had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes. Mr Justice Butterfield ordered them to lie on the file. Seven other men are due to stand trial next year.
Barot will be sentenced at a later date.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian : Treason Suspect Once on Spiritual Quest
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Treason Suspect Once on Spiritual Quest
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ | Associated Press Writer | October 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES (AP) - As a teenager, Adam Yedihe Gadahn appeared to be on a spiritual quest.
The 28-year-old American charged Wednesday with treason for allegedly aiding al-Qaida was raised in a largely nonreligious household. At one point he dabbled with demonic heavy metal music and later studied Christianity.
Still in his teens, he abandoned both, walking into an Orange County mosque in the 1990s and pronouncing his devotion to Islam.
``I can't say when I actually decided that Islam was for me. It was really a natural progression,'' he wrote on a Web site in 1995, when he was 17 years old. ``I knew well that they were not the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists that the news media and the televangelists paint them to be.''
Now, Gadahn stands accused of joining al-Quaida and appearing in its propaganda videos, including one in which he declared, ``America's streets will run red with blood.''
The California native is a fugitive, believed to be somewhere in or near Pakistan. His case marks the first time a charge of treason has been used in the U.S. war on terrorism.
Gadahn is also the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years, and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.
Gadahn ``knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaida, and gave al-Qaida aid and comfort ... with intent to betray the United States,'' according to the indictment, handed up by an Orange County grand jury.
Gadahn has been sought by the FBI since 2004. The agency added Gadahn to its list of most wanted terrorists, according to the indictment, and the State Department offered a $1 million reward for information leading to his capture.
``The charge of treason is exceptionally severe and it is not one that we bring lightly,'' Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told reporters in Washington. ``But this is the right case for this charge.''
Gadahn is suspected of having attended al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and serving as one of its translators. He has become known by his nom de guerre, Azzam al-Amriki, or ``Azzam the American.''
Appearing last month in a 48-minute video along with al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Gadahn called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
It was the second time he appeared in a video with al-Zawahri. In a July 7 clip marking the one-year anniversary of the terror attack on London commuters, Gadahn appeared briefly, saying no Muslim should ``shed tears'' for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.
Beyond that, authorities believe he is the masked figure who appeared in two previous videos from al-Qaida, one given to ABC television in 2004 and another a few days before the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
According to the indictment, Gadahn announced in the 2004 video that he had joined al-Qaida, ``a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans.''
In a 2005 video, Gadahn referred to terrorist attacks in Europe and threatened more against the United States.
The treason charge carries penalties ranging from a five-year prison sentence to the death penalty, while the charge of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization carries a possible 15-year sentence.
The last person in the U.S. convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting American prisoners of war during World War II. President Eisenhower later commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
Raised on a goat farm in Riverside in Southern California, Gadahn was home-schooled, partly because the dirt road outside his home often becomes impassable in winter.
The family was Christian but not particularly religious, with his father describing them as Universalist and believers in nonviolence.
After Gadahn became a Muslim, he worshipped at the Islamic Society of Orange County, which later expelled him for hitting one of its leaders in the face in May 1997.
Gadahn was sentenced to two days in jail and five days of community service, but he never showed up for the community service. He was last known to be in Southern California in 1997 or 1998.
Associated Press writers Gillian Flaccus in Garden Grove, Calif., and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington contributed to this story.
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ | Associated Press Writer | October 12, 2006
LOS ANGELES (AP) - As a teenager, Adam Yedihe Gadahn appeared to be on a spiritual quest.
The 28-year-old American charged Wednesday with treason for allegedly aiding al-Qaida was raised in a largely nonreligious household. At one point he dabbled with demonic heavy metal music and later studied Christianity.
Still in his teens, he abandoned both, walking into an Orange County mosque in the 1990s and pronouncing his devotion to Islam.
``I can't say when I actually decided that Islam was for me. It was really a natural progression,'' he wrote on a Web site in 1995, when he was 17 years old. ``I knew well that they were not the bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists that the news media and the televangelists paint them to be.''
Now, Gadahn stands accused of joining al-Quaida and appearing in its propaganda videos, including one in which he declared, ``America's streets will run red with blood.''
The California native is a fugitive, believed to be somewhere in or near Pakistan. His case marks the first time a charge of treason has been used in the U.S. war on terrorism.
Gadahn is also the first American to be charged with treason in more than 50 years, and could face the death penalty if convicted. He also was indicted on a charge of providing material support to terrorists.
Gadahn ``knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaida, and gave al-Qaida aid and comfort ... with intent to betray the United States,'' according to the indictment, handed up by an Orange County grand jury.
Gadahn has been sought by the FBI since 2004. The agency added Gadahn to its list of most wanted terrorists, according to the indictment, and the State Department offered a $1 million reward for information leading to his capture.
``The charge of treason is exceptionally severe and it is not one that we bring lightly,'' Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told reporters in Washington. ``But this is the right case for this charge.''
Gadahn is suspected of having attended al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and serving as one of its translators. He has become known by his nom de guerre, Azzam al-Amriki, or ``Azzam the American.''
Appearing last month in a 48-minute video along with al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, Gadahn called on his countrymen to convert to Islam and for U.S. soldiers to switch sides in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
It was the second time he appeared in a video with al-Zawahri. In a July 7 clip marking the one-year anniversary of the terror attack on London commuters, Gadahn appeared briefly, saying no Muslim should ``shed tears'' for Westerners killed by al-Qaida attacks.
Beyond that, authorities believe he is the masked figure who appeared in two previous videos from al-Qaida, one given to ABC television in 2004 and another a few days before the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
According to the indictment, Gadahn announced in the 2004 video that he had joined al-Qaida, ``a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans.''
In a 2005 video, Gadahn referred to terrorist attacks in Europe and threatened more against the United States.
The treason charge carries penalties ranging from a five-year prison sentence to the death penalty, while the charge of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization carries a possible 15-year sentence.
The last person in the U.S. convicted of treason was Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American sentenced to death in 1952 for tormenting American prisoners of war during World War II. President Eisenhower later commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.
Raised on a goat farm in Riverside in Southern California, Gadahn was home-schooled, partly because the dirt road outside his home often becomes impassable in winter.
The family was Christian but not particularly religious, with his father describing them as Universalist and believers in nonviolence.
After Gadahn became a Muslim, he worshipped at the Islamic Society of Orange County, which later expelled him for hitting one of its leaders in the face in May 1997.
Gadahn was sentenced to two days in jail and five days of community service, but he never showed up for the community service. He was last known to be in Southern California in 1997 or 1998.
Associated Press writers Gillian Flaccus in Garden Grove, Calif., and Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington contributed to this story.
BBC : Man admits UK-US terror bomb plot
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Man admits UK-US terror bomb plot
BBC News | October 12, 2006
A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and US targets.
Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.
He intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos", prosecutors said.
Barot, 34, also allegedly plotted to cause explosions at several US financial buildings "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible".
Synchronised
Prosecuting QC Edmund Lawson said plans had been found by police on a computer after Barot was arrested in August 2004.
The plans were for attacks on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York and the Prudential buildings in Newark, New Jersey.
"These being plans...to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," said Mr Lawson.
The defendant also plotted to blow up three limousines "packed" with gas cylinders and explosives in underground car parks in the UK, the court heard.
Mr Lawson said the plot - known as the Gas Limos Project - was to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK.
Sentence
Other bombings being planned included a so-called "dirty bomb project".
Mr Lawson said this plot was designed to achieve "a number of further and collateral objectives such as to cause injury, fear, terror and chaos".
According to expert evidence, if the radiation (dirty bomb) project had been carried out, it would have been unlikely to cause deaths, but was designed to affect about 500 people, he said.
The Crown could not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired, he said.
Barot had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes.
The judge ordered all these charges to lie on file following his guilty plea to conspiracy to murder.
Barot will be sentenced at a later date.
BBC News | October 12, 2006
A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and US targets.
Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive "dirty bomb" in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard.
He intended to cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos", prosecutors said.
Barot, 34, also allegedly plotted to cause explosions at several US financial buildings "designed to kill as many innocent people as possible".
Synchronised
Prosecuting QC Edmund Lawson said plans had been found by police on a computer after Barot was arrested in August 2004.
The plans were for attacks on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank buildings in Washington, the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup buildings in New York and the Prudential buildings in Newark, New Jersey.
"These being plans...to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning, they were basically designed to kill as many innocent people as possible," said Mr Lawson.
The defendant also plotted to blow up three limousines "packed" with gas cylinders and explosives in underground car parks in the UK, the court heard.
Mr Lawson said the plot - known as the Gas Limos Project - was to form the "main cornerstone" of a series of synchronised attacks in the UK.
Sentence
Other bombings being planned included a so-called "dirty bomb project".
Mr Lawson said this plot was designed to achieve "a number of further and collateral objectives such as to cause injury, fear, terror and chaos".
According to expert evidence, if the radiation (dirty bomb) project had been carried out, it would have been unlikely to cause deaths, but was designed to affect about 500 people, he said.
The Crown could not dispute claims from the defence that no funding had been received for the projects, nor any vehicles or bomb-making materials acquired, he said.
Barot had also faced 12 other charges: one of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, seven of making a record of information for terrorist purposes and four of possessing a record of information for terrorist purposes.
The judge ordered all these charges to lie on file following his guilty plea to conspiracy to murder.
Barot will be sentenced at a later date.
Chicago Sun-Times : It wasn't terrorism, so we return to our regularly scheduled lives
Thursday, October 12, 2006
It wasn't terrorism, so we return to our regularly scheduled lives
by RICHARD ROEPER | Sun-Times Columnist | October 12, 2006
''There are a lot more dangerous things than flying a plane. If something happens up there, you can glide for 20 minutes." --Cory Lidle in February 2006 after obtaining his pilot's license.
At first it sounded like the set-up for a sick joke. New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle was the pilot of the plane that crashed into a New York City high-rise? OK, what's the punch line?
But it was not one of those twisted "disaster" jokes that we often hear in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. Some 27 years after Yankee great Thurman Munson was killed in Ohio while practicing takeoffs and landings in his Cessna, Yanks pitcher Cory Lidle was the registered pilot of the small aircraft that crashed into a Manhattan skyscraper (to this day, Munson's Yankee locker remains empty as a tribute.)
Lidle's passport was reportedly found near the crash. Imagine being the individual who found the passport and maybe recognized the name and photo. How bizarre is that?
Just two days ago, Lidle had called in to WFAN radio and had engaged in a "tense, bizarre" conversation with the hosts, according to an article Tuesday in Newsday. He had been getting ripped on talk radio. Many Yankees fans were outraged because Lidle had been quoted as saying the Tigers seemed more prepared than the Yanks for their recent playoff series. A number of pundits were saying the recently acquired Lidle should move on to another team in 2007.
All of that stuff seems so small now.
Suddenly chilling words
Last month the New York Times did a feature piece about Lidle's passion for flying.
At the time, it was a standard, well-done feature. Now it seems chilling.
"When the Yankees fly, the pilots are not only in the cockpit," wrote Tyler Kepner. "There is another pilot in the main cabin, where the players sit. He is probably studying his hand-held Global Positioning System receiver, tracking the weather and noting the plane's precise speed and altitude.
"He is Cory Lidle, who has been a major league pitcher for nine years and a pilot for seven months. He earned his pilot's license last off-season and bought a four-seat airplane for $187,000. It is a Cirrus SR20..."
Regarding concerns about the safety of his hobby, Lidle said, "The whole plane has a parachute on it. Ninety-nine percent of pilots that go up never have engine failure, and the 1 percent that do usually land it. But if you're up in the air and something goes wrong, you pull that parachute, and the whole plane goes down slowly."
Lidle's instructor, Tyler Stanger, told the Times that Lidle kept his cool in simulated emergency situations.
"Most people get kind of ruffled. He was like, 'OK, no big deal.' A lot of it is his mental state.... If you're in an emergency, you can't waste any time worrying. You have to take command of the situation. A lot of people I fly with don't have that mentality. Cory does."
No indication of terrorist activity
Before the shocking news about Lidle surfaced Wednesday afternoon, the obligatory issue was popping up every 30 seconds on the cable news programs. If you heard it once, you heard it a hundred times:
"There's no indication this was an act of terrorism."
"Nothing has been ruled out, but all indications are that this was an accident."
Even before CNN and Fox News and MSNBC could agree on whether it was a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft that crashed into a high-rise in New York City, even as NORAD was scrambling fighter aircrafts to major U.S. cities as a precautionary measure, even as we were getting conflicting reports on when the building was evacuated, the news anchors and the officials they were interviewing kept stressing there was no reason to believe this was anything other than a terrible accident. ("No word if 'terrorists' or 'tourists' are to blame, because both sound the same when Bush says them," was the wisecrack headline on Fark.com.)
For more than five years now, we've been holding our breath, wondering when terrorists would strike in New York City, or Chicago, or Washington, D.C, or Disney World, or God knows where.
How many false alarms have there been in airport terminals, on planes, in high-rises? How many times have we heard about a plane crash or a fire or an explosion -- only to receive quick reassurances this was "only" a run-of-the-mill tragedy? If it's a freakish plane crash or a factory explosion or a crazed loner gunman, we shake our heads and say, "What a shame," but we forge ahead with our day. If it turns out to be something more than that -- and one day, it will turn out to be something else -- immediate local concerns like the gubernatorial race and the weather and the Bears will suddenly seem trivial.
"Ebert & Roeper" airs after the late news on Saturday and at 10:30 a.m. Sunday on WLS-Channel 7.
by RICHARD ROEPER | Sun-Times Columnist | October 12, 2006
''There are a lot more dangerous things than flying a plane. If something happens up there, you can glide for 20 minutes." --Cory Lidle in February 2006 after obtaining his pilot's license.
At first it sounded like the set-up for a sick joke. New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle was the pilot of the plane that crashed into a New York City high-rise? OK, what's the punch line?
But it was not one of those twisted "disaster" jokes that we often hear in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. Some 27 years after Yankee great Thurman Munson was killed in Ohio while practicing takeoffs and landings in his Cessna, Yanks pitcher Cory Lidle was the registered pilot of the small aircraft that crashed into a Manhattan skyscraper (to this day, Munson's Yankee locker remains empty as a tribute.)
Lidle's passport was reportedly found near the crash. Imagine being the individual who found the passport and maybe recognized the name and photo. How bizarre is that?
Just two days ago, Lidle had called in to WFAN radio and had engaged in a "tense, bizarre" conversation with the hosts, according to an article Tuesday in Newsday. He had been getting ripped on talk radio. Many Yankees fans were outraged because Lidle had been quoted as saying the Tigers seemed more prepared than the Yanks for their recent playoff series. A number of pundits were saying the recently acquired Lidle should move on to another team in 2007.
All of that stuff seems so small now.
Suddenly chilling words
Last month the New York Times did a feature piece about Lidle's passion for flying.
At the time, it was a standard, well-done feature. Now it seems chilling.
"When the Yankees fly, the pilots are not only in the cockpit," wrote Tyler Kepner. "There is another pilot in the main cabin, where the players sit. He is probably studying his hand-held Global Positioning System receiver, tracking the weather and noting the plane's precise speed and altitude.
"He is Cory Lidle, who has been a major league pitcher for nine years and a pilot for seven months. He earned his pilot's license last off-season and bought a four-seat airplane for $187,000. It is a Cirrus SR20..."
Regarding concerns about the safety of his hobby, Lidle said, "The whole plane has a parachute on it. Ninety-nine percent of pilots that go up never have engine failure, and the 1 percent that do usually land it. But if you're up in the air and something goes wrong, you pull that parachute, and the whole plane goes down slowly."
Lidle's instructor, Tyler Stanger, told the Times that Lidle kept his cool in simulated emergency situations.
"Most people get kind of ruffled. He was like, 'OK, no big deal.' A lot of it is his mental state.... If you're in an emergency, you can't waste any time worrying. You have to take command of the situation. A lot of people I fly with don't have that mentality. Cory does."
No indication of terrorist activity
Before the shocking news about Lidle surfaced Wednesday afternoon, the obligatory issue was popping up every 30 seconds on the cable news programs. If you heard it once, you heard it a hundred times:
"There's no indication this was an act of terrorism."
"Nothing has been ruled out, but all indications are that this was an accident."
Even before CNN and Fox News and MSNBC could agree on whether it was a helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft that crashed into a high-rise in New York City, even as NORAD was scrambling fighter aircrafts to major U.S. cities as a precautionary measure, even as we were getting conflicting reports on when the building was evacuated, the news anchors and the officials they were interviewing kept stressing there was no reason to believe this was anything other than a terrible accident. ("No word if 'terrorists' or 'tourists' are to blame, because both sound the same when Bush says them," was the wisecrack headline on Fark.com.)
For more than five years now, we've been holding our breath, wondering when terrorists would strike in New York City, or Chicago, or Washington, D.C, or Disney World, or God knows where.
How many false alarms have there been in airport terminals, on planes, in high-rises? How many times have we heard about a plane crash or a fire or an explosion -- only to receive quick reassurances this was "only" a run-of-the-mill tragedy? If it's a freakish plane crash or a factory explosion or a crazed loner gunman, we shake our heads and say, "What a shame," but we forge ahead with our day. If it turns out to be something more than that -- and one day, it will turn out to be something else -- immediate local concerns like the gubernatorial race and the weather and the Bears will suddenly seem trivial.
"Ebert & Roeper" airs after the late news on Saturday and at 10:30 a.m. Sunday on WLS-Channel 7.
Mercury News : British man admits to U.S. bomb plot
Thursday, October 12, 2006
British man admits to U.S. bomb plot
by JILL LAWLESS | Associated Press | October 12, 2006
LONDON - A British man pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiring to bomb high-profile targets in the United States including the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington and the New York Stock Exchange.
"I plead guilty," Dhiran Barot, 32, said in a clear voice at Woolwich Crown Court in south London.
Other alleged targets in the plot, which was foiled by Barot's arrest in 2004, included the World Bank headquarters in Washington, the Citigroup building in New York and the Prudential building in Newark, N.J.
Prosecutor Edward Lawson said Barot planned "to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning. They were plainly designed to kill as may people as possible."
In Britain, Barot planned to pack gas cylinders into limousines and detonate them in underground parking garages, Lawson said.
This plan was "described by Mr. Barot as the main cornerstone of attacks planned to take place in the U.K.," Lawson said.
He said another plot involved the use of radioactive material in a rudimentary "dirty" bomb that would, cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos," although it was unlikely to kill anyone.
Lawson said plans outlining details of the "back-to-back" attacks had been found on a computer after Barot's arrest in August 2004.
Judge Neil Butterfield deferred sentencing of Barot but did not announce a date.
by JILL LAWLESS | Associated Press | October 12, 2006
LONDON - A British man pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiring to bomb high-profile targets in the United States including the International Monetary Fund headquarters in Washington and the New York Stock Exchange.
"I plead guilty," Dhiran Barot, 32, said in a clear voice at Woolwich Crown Court in south London.
Other alleged targets in the plot, which was foiled by Barot's arrest in 2004, included the World Bank headquarters in Washington, the Citigroup building in New York and the Prudential building in Newark, N.J.
Prosecutor Edward Lawson said Barot planned "to carry out explosions at those premises with no warning. They were plainly designed to kill as may people as possible."
In Britain, Barot planned to pack gas cylinders into limousines and detonate them in underground parking garages, Lawson said.
This plan was "described by Mr. Barot as the main cornerstone of attacks planned to take place in the U.K.," Lawson said.
He said another plot involved the use of radioactive material in a rudimentary "dirty" bomb that would, cause "injury, fear, terror and chaos," although it was unlikely to kill anyone.
Lawson said plans outlining details of the "back-to-back" attacks had been found on a computer after Barot's arrest in August 2004.
Judge Neil Butterfield deferred sentencing of Barot but did not announce a date.
Daily Gazette (Schenectady) : Verdict is in, but who is really guilty?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Verdict is in, but who is really guilty?
Carl Strock | October 12, 2006
I hang my head in shame.
Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, two local Muslim men who were minding their own business until the FBI came into their lives, have been convicted of supporting terrorism, of all things.
Convicted by a jury of my peers. Not necessarily their peers, but my peers, meaning ordinary middle-class people from upstate New York, who sat patiently for 12 days and listened to evidence that in my opinion was an embarrassment to our country, or should have been an embarrassment to our country, and then sat for another 3 1/2 days and discussed that evidence before arriving at their verdict.
Guilty.
Guilty of conspiring to do something that the two probably did not understand, that in any event they never dreamed of doing until an FBI undercover operative tricked them into it (an exchange of checks for cash) and that they were so sure was OK they insisted on putting it in writing.
They were even found guilty of providing support to a terrorist organization fighting in Kashmir that one of them kept telling the FBI's snitch, who was secretly recording everything, that he didn't know anything about and that the other one thought was a musical group.
Such is the fear of Muslim terrorism, I guess. Such is the irrationality that has seized us since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Such is the determination not to take any chances.
That we expend God knows what resources - in FBI agents, translators, hidden recorders, missile experts - to play what amounts to an elaborate prank on two unsuspecting Muslim men just to see if they will fall for it, which they only partially did.
The bizarre thing is that the two, far from being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, are not even radicals within the Islamic universe. They are altogether moderate. In 50 hours of secretly taped conversation that the FBI produced for our delectation (and we don't know how many more hours that didn't mate the cut), not once did they advocate violence, not once did they express admiration or support for al-Qaida.
On the contrary, one of them counseled the FBI's snitch, a Pakistani con-man, to stay away from the people with whom he was supposedly dealing "ammunitions," including a shoulder-fired missile, which was an FBI prop deployed in this prank. He argued that Islam would spread by Muslims doing good.
The other urged support for refugee women and children in Kashmir, if the snitch wanted to help Kashmir, and in an old diary that the FBI confiscated and translated he supported parliamentary government as against Islamic extremism.
And yet a jury convicted them. Of course I wanted to talk to the jurors after they were discharged, to ask them what went through their heads, and I pursued them out through the parking garage next to the courthouse, down on Broadway in Albany, for that purpose, but they wouldn't talk. They got in their cars and drove off, so I got no satisfaction in that department.
But I will say this: Our president is very free in his use of the word "evil" to describe the forces that threaten the United States, and I don't disagree with him on that, but what would you call a three-year effort by our own government to dupe two humble law-abiding immigrants and devastate their families, if not evil?
Yassin Aref, a Kurdish refugee from Iraq, has a wife and four children, ranging in age from 11 down to just under a year, all of them dependent on him for support.
Mohammed Hossain, an American citizen originally from Bangladesh, has a wife and six children, ranging in age from 13 also down to just under a year, and all of them likewise dependent on him and on his hole-in-the-wall pizza shop.
Neither of the men, I repeat, was doing anything whatsoever to threaten this country or to support other who might threaten this country.
But the FBI tricked them, a jury bought the trick, and they now face some 20 years of incarceration each. And not in the county jail but most likely in a maximum-security federal prison in Illinois or Colorado, as supporters of terrorism.
What do you think will become of their wives and children? How will they support themselves? How will they live? Some of the children are quite Americanized, I understand, but the wives are not. Not at all.
Think about it. Think about yourself in that position. Living in a foreign land, trying to function in a foreign language, facing what they face.
I have spent a little time with the two men, and they both strike me as decent - Aref religious, thoughtful and scholarly, Hossain, self-effacing, unsophisticated, hard-working.
They came to this country full of hopes, and they broke no laws until the FBI very elaborately led them to do so, if you think they broke laws at all, which I really don't.
So if we're going to talk about evil, is it evil what the FBI did to these men and their families? Is it evil what the U.S. attorney's office did in prosecuting the case? I don't have to tell you what I think. If evil means anything, it has to mean smashing people's lives for no legitimate reason.
I would like to say something to them, if by chance they get to read this in their solation cells in the Rensselaer County Jail, where they await sentencing.
Yassin and Mohammed: I hope you have the strength to endure what you now face. I suspect you do, that you will find the strength in your religious faith, a faith that I do not share, but that is obviously a large part of your lives.
The time may come when Congress will pass a resolution apologizing to you and others like you who got swept up in the fear that followed 9/11, just as it passed a resolution apologizing to the Japanese-Americans who got swept up in the fear that followed Pearl Harbor, but that will probably come too late to do you any practical good. Your lives will have inched away by then, and your children will be long grown.
I hope they grow up able not to hate America, just as I hope you too are able not to hate America.
It is just your great misfortune that you were who you were at this time and in this place, that you were brown-skinned, bearded Muslim men speaking in foreign accents, in Albany, after the attacks of 9/11. The local FBI office needed to prove itself in the new War on Terror, and you were it. As simple as that.
I am very sorry for you and your families, and as presumptuous as it may be, I apologize to you on behalf of my country.
Good luck.
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com
Carl Strock | October 12, 2006
I hang my head in shame.
Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, two local Muslim men who were minding their own business until the FBI came into their lives, have been convicted of supporting terrorism, of all things.
Convicted by a jury of my peers. Not necessarily their peers, but my peers, meaning ordinary middle-class people from upstate New York, who sat patiently for 12 days and listened to evidence that in my opinion was an embarrassment to our country, or should have been an embarrassment to our country, and then sat for another 3 1/2 days and discussed that evidence before arriving at their verdict.
Guilty.
Guilty of conspiring to do something that the two probably did not understand, that in any event they never dreamed of doing until an FBI undercover operative tricked them into it (an exchange of checks for cash) and that they were so sure was OK they insisted on putting it in writing.
They were even found guilty of providing support to a terrorist organization fighting in Kashmir that one of them kept telling the FBI's snitch, who was secretly recording everything, that he didn't know anything about and that the other one thought was a musical group.
Such is the fear of Muslim terrorism, I guess. Such is the irrationality that has seized us since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Such is the determination not to take any chances.
That we expend God knows what resources - in FBI agents, translators, hidden recorders, missile experts - to play what amounts to an elaborate prank on two unsuspecting Muslim men just to see if they will fall for it, which they only partially did.
The bizarre thing is that the two, far from being terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, are not even radicals within the Islamic universe. They are altogether moderate. In 50 hours of secretly taped conversation that the FBI produced for our delectation (and we don't know how many more hours that didn't mate the cut), not once did they advocate violence, not once did they express admiration or support for al-Qaida.
On the contrary, one of them counseled the FBI's snitch, a Pakistani con-man, to stay away from the people with whom he was supposedly dealing "ammunitions," including a shoulder-fired missile, which was an FBI prop deployed in this prank. He argued that Islam would spread by Muslims doing good.
The other urged support for refugee women and children in Kashmir, if the snitch wanted to help Kashmir, and in an old diary that the FBI confiscated and translated he supported parliamentary government as against Islamic extremism.
And yet a jury convicted them. Of course I wanted to talk to the jurors after they were discharged, to ask them what went through their heads, and I pursued them out through the parking garage next to the courthouse, down on Broadway in Albany, for that purpose, but they wouldn't talk. They got in their cars and drove off, so I got no satisfaction in that department.
But I will say this: Our president is very free in his use of the word "evil" to describe the forces that threaten the United States, and I don't disagree with him on that, but what would you call a three-year effort by our own government to dupe two humble law-abiding immigrants and devastate their families, if not evil?
Yassin Aref, a Kurdish refugee from Iraq, has a wife and four children, ranging in age from 11 down to just under a year, all of them dependent on him for support.
Mohammed Hossain, an American citizen originally from Bangladesh, has a wife and six children, ranging in age from 13 also down to just under a year, and all of them likewise dependent on him and on his hole-in-the-wall pizza shop.
Neither of the men, I repeat, was doing anything whatsoever to threaten this country or to support other who might threaten this country.
But the FBI tricked them, a jury bought the trick, and they now face some 20 years of incarceration each. And not in the county jail but most likely in a maximum-security federal prison in Illinois or Colorado, as supporters of terrorism.
What do you think will become of their wives and children? How will they support themselves? How will they live? Some of the children are quite Americanized, I understand, but the wives are not. Not at all.
Think about it. Think about yourself in that position. Living in a foreign land, trying to function in a foreign language, facing what they face.
I have spent a little time with the two men, and they both strike me as decent - Aref religious, thoughtful and scholarly, Hossain, self-effacing, unsophisticated, hard-working.
They came to this country full of hopes, and they broke no laws until the FBI very elaborately led them to do so, if you think they broke laws at all, which I really don't.
So if we're going to talk about evil, is it evil what the FBI did to these men and their families? Is it evil what the U.S. attorney's office did in prosecuting the case? I don't have to tell you what I think. If evil means anything, it has to mean smashing people's lives for no legitimate reason.
I would like to say something to them, if by chance they get to read this in their solation cells in the Rensselaer County Jail, where they await sentencing.
Yassin and Mohammed: I hope you have the strength to endure what you now face. I suspect you do, that you will find the strength in your religious faith, a faith that I do not share, but that is obviously a large part of your lives.
The time may come when Congress will pass a resolution apologizing to you and others like you who got swept up in the fear that followed 9/11, just as it passed a resolution apologizing to the Japanese-Americans who got swept up in the fear that followed Pearl Harbor, but that will probably come too late to do you any practical good. Your lives will have inched away by then, and your children will be long grown.
I hope they grow up able not to hate America, just as I hope you too are able not to hate America.
It is just your great misfortune that you were who you were at this time and in this place, that you were brown-skinned, bearded Muslim men speaking in foreign accents, in Albany, after the attacks of 9/11. The local FBI office needed to prove itself in the new War on Terror, and you were it. As simple as that.
I am very sorry for you and your families, and as presumptuous as it may be, I apologize to you on behalf of my country.
Good luck.
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com
Filed under
Albany,
entrapment,
FBI,
Mohammed Mosharref Hossain,
Yassin Muhiddin Aref
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, October 12, 2006
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
NYT : In a Risky Place to Gather News, a Very Familiar Story
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
In a Risky Place to Gather News, a Very Familiar Story
By STEVEN LEE MYERS | October 11, 2006
MOSCOW, Oct. 10 — The mourners stood in the rain, which fell heavily at moments on Tuesday, fulfilling their part in a ritual of sadness and anger and, politically speaking, inconsequence, which has become strikingly common in Russia today.
They gathered, in this case, on the western edge of Moscow for the funeral of Anna Politkovskaya, a tenacious, sometimes reckless, but always passionate journalist and human rights advocate, who died three days ago at the hands of, from all appearances, a professional killer.
Her murder has made her a symbol of what Russia has become, but it was only the latest in a series of them. She was 48; the freedoms that she used to make her post-Soviet career, to write openly and critically about the deeds of a new Russian power, are much younger. And, it would seem, equally fragile.
“Anna was, in my opinion, a glimpse of hope,” said Tatyana Ivanyenko, a doctor from Moscow who attended the funeral. “And now there is none.”
Unnatural death occurs with alarming regularity here, despite the carefully cultivated impression that President Vladimir V. Putin has presided over an era of stability, economic progress and resurgent national pride. Some say it occurs because of it.
“This state killed Anna Politkovskaya,” Grigory A. Yavlinsky, a once-prominent democratic leader, declared bluntly as the mourners filed out into a cold, gray afternoon.
Russia is unquestionably a dangerous place for journalists — less so than only Iraq and Algeria, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thirteen of them have been killed since Mr. Putin came to power in 2000, a little more than two a year on average.
The killings — and the failure to solve them — have created an atmosphere of impunity and violence that extends beyond those whose writings or broadcasts anger those in government or business. That was also lamented here, inside an airy white-stone hall at Troyekurovskoye Cemetery.
Ms. Politkovskaya’s killing was the third mob-style assassination of prominence in the last month alone. Andrei Kozlov, the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, who led efforts to clean up the dirty money of the country’s banking system, was killed as he left a soccer game on Sept. 13. Less than two weeks later, Enver Ziganshin, the chief engineer of Kovytka, a potentially lucrative gas field in Siberia at the center of a dispute with the government, was shot in the back and head at his bathhouse in the countryside.
None of the victims were radicals or revolutionaries, or, to use an old word, dissidents; that is, fringe figures operating outside the established law of the land. They were of the mainstream — representatives of the news media, the government, a major energy company — working at careers in the newly free, democratic and market-oriented country that the collapse of the Soviet Union promised.
After each death the ritual of mourning resumes, and little changes. The chief prosecutor, Yuri Y. Chaika, announced this week that he had taken the investigation of Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder under his “personal control,” fulfilling his own part of the ritual, as other prosecutors once took control of other killings, like that of the American journalist Paul Klebnikov in 2004, that nonetheless remain unsolved.
Russia’s ombudsman for human rights, Vladimir V. Lukin, noted Tuesday that three years ago he organized the funeral for one of Ms. Politkovskaya’s colleagues, the editor of Novaya Gazeta, Yuri Shchekochikhin, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction to an unknown substance assumed to be a poison.
“Now, it happens again,” said Mr. Lukin, one of the few government officials to attend the funeral on Tuesday, though he is hardly one of the highest rank.
Ms. Politkovskaya’s funeral, in fact, displayed the deep divisions in today’s Russia between those in power and those not. The mourners included her family and friends, colleagues and politicians, though almost all from outside the center of power, and several foreign diplomats, including Ambassador William J. Burns of the United States, whose governments have denounced her killing far more forcefully than Mr. Putin or any other senior government leaders here.
Mr. Putin, traveling in Germany, spoke about her death publicly for the first time on Tuesday, a day after the Kremlin reported that he assured President Bush in a telephone conversation that there would be a thorough investigation. He called her killing “a crime of loathsome brutality.”
Then he went on. “I think that journalists should be aware that her influence on political life was extremely insignificant in scale,” Mr. Putin said, according to the news agency Interfax. “She was known in journalist and human rights circles, but her influence on political life in Russia was minimal.”
Some of those at the cemetery agreed, though hardly in the sense that Mr. Putin intended. “Our press long ago lost any influence over society,” said Obdurashid Saidov, a journalist from Dagestan, a troubled southern republic.
Ms. Politkovskaya became famous for her investigations of the war in Chechnya and its messy, bloody consequences across the Northern Caucasus. Her reports — in Novaya Gazeta and in a book published in 2002 and called “The Second Chechen War” in Russian and “A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya” in its English translation — served like few others in Russia to challenge the official view of the conflict.
And yet, as the war ground on, as Russia moved on, and as some Chechen separatists carried out terrorist acts, attacking theatergoers in Moscow and school children in Beslan, fewer Russians seemed interested in reading about the brutalities of the federal forces that she exposed.
The motive for her killing remains a mystery, though few doubt it was related to her work. Alternative theories have emerged. Some have suggested a dark conspiracy by the Kremlin’s opponents to kill her in order to provoke public protests, like those that followed the killing of a prominent journalist in Ukraine, Georgy Gongadze, whose murder in 2000 became a rallying cry of the “Orange Revolution” that swept that country in 2004.
One proponent of that line of thinking seems to be Mr. Putin himself. “We have information, and it is reliable,” he said in Dresden on Tuesday, “that many people hiding from Russian justice have long been nurturing the idea of sacrificing somebody in order to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling in the world.”
The hall where Ms. Politkovskaya’s coffin lay Tuesday had a capacity of 1,000; hundreds more lined up outside. After a few short eulogies, they filed past, laying flowers in piles that grew high and higher, and then dispersed in the rain.
By STEVEN LEE MYERS | October 11, 2006
MOSCOW, Oct. 10 — The mourners stood in the rain, which fell heavily at moments on Tuesday, fulfilling their part in a ritual of sadness and anger and, politically speaking, inconsequence, which has become strikingly common in Russia today.
They gathered, in this case, on the western edge of Moscow for the funeral of Anna Politkovskaya, a tenacious, sometimes reckless, but always passionate journalist and human rights advocate, who died three days ago at the hands of, from all appearances, a professional killer.
Her murder has made her a symbol of what Russia has become, but it was only the latest in a series of them. She was 48; the freedoms that she used to make her post-Soviet career, to write openly and critically about the deeds of a new Russian power, are much younger. And, it would seem, equally fragile.
“Anna was, in my opinion, a glimpse of hope,” said Tatyana Ivanyenko, a doctor from Moscow who attended the funeral. “And now there is none.”
Unnatural death occurs with alarming regularity here, despite the carefully cultivated impression that President Vladimir V. Putin has presided over an era of stability, economic progress and resurgent national pride. Some say it occurs because of it.
“This state killed Anna Politkovskaya,” Grigory A. Yavlinsky, a once-prominent democratic leader, declared bluntly as the mourners filed out into a cold, gray afternoon.
Russia is unquestionably a dangerous place for journalists — less so than only Iraq and Algeria, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thirteen of them have been killed since Mr. Putin came to power in 2000, a little more than two a year on average.
The killings — and the failure to solve them — have created an atmosphere of impunity and violence that extends beyond those whose writings or broadcasts anger those in government or business. That was also lamented here, inside an airy white-stone hall at Troyekurovskoye Cemetery.
Ms. Politkovskaya’s killing was the third mob-style assassination of prominence in the last month alone. Andrei Kozlov, the first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, who led efforts to clean up the dirty money of the country’s banking system, was killed as he left a soccer game on Sept. 13. Less than two weeks later, Enver Ziganshin, the chief engineer of Kovytka, a potentially lucrative gas field in Siberia at the center of a dispute with the government, was shot in the back and head at his bathhouse in the countryside.
None of the victims were radicals or revolutionaries, or, to use an old word, dissidents; that is, fringe figures operating outside the established law of the land. They were of the mainstream — representatives of the news media, the government, a major energy company — working at careers in the newly free, democratic and market-oriented country that the collapse of the Soviet Union promised.
After each death the ritual of mourning resumes, and little changes. The chief prosecutor, Yuri Y. Chaika, announced this week that he had taken the investigation of Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder under his “personal control,” fulfilling his own part of the ritual, as other prosecutors once took control of other killings, like that of the American journalist Paul Klebnikov in 2004, that nonetheless remain unsolved.
Russia’s ombudsman for human rights, Vladimir V. Lukin, noted Tuesday that three years ago he organized the funeral for one of Ms. Politkovskaya’s colleagues, the editor of Novaya Gazeta, Yuri Shchekochikhin, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction to an unknown substance assumed to be a poison.
“Now, it happens again,” said Mr. Lukin, one of the few government officials to attend the funeral on Tuesday, though he is hardly one of the highest rank.
Ms. Politkovskaya’s funeral, in fact, displayed the deep divisions in today’s Russia between those in power and those not. The mourners included her family and friends, colleagues and politicians, though almost all from outside the center of power, and several foreign diplomats, including Ambassador William J. Burns of the United States, whose governments have denounced her killing far more forcefully than Mr. Putin or any other senior government leaders here.
Mr. Putin, traveling in Germany, spoke about her death publicly for the first time on Tuesday, a day after the Kremlin reported that he assured President Bush in a telephone conversation that there would be a thorough investigation. He called her killing “a crime of loathsome brutality.”
Then he went on. “I think that journalists should be aware that her influence on political life was extremely insignificant in scale,” Mr. Putin said, according to the news agency Interfax. “She was known in journalist and human rights circles, but her influence on political life in Russia was minimal.”
Some of those at the cemetery agreed, though hardly in the sense that Mr. Putin intended. “Our press long ago lost any influence over society,” said Obdurashid Saidov, a journalist from Dagestan, a troubled southern republic.
Ms. Politkovskaya became famous for her investigations of the war in Chechnya and its messy, bloody consequences across the Northern Caucasus. Her reports — in Novaya Gazeta and in a book published in 2002 and called “The Second Chechen War” in Russian and “A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya” in its English translation — served like few others in Russia to challenge the official view of the conflict.
And yet, as the war ground on, as Russia moved on, and as some Chechen separatists carried out terrorist acts, attacking theatergoers in Moscow and school children in Beslan, fewer Russians seemed interested in reading about the brutalities of the federal forces that she exposed.
The motive for her killing remains a mystery, though few doubt it was related to her work. Alternative theories have emerged. Some have suggested a dark conspiracy by the Kremlin’s opponents to kill her in order to provoke public protests, like those that followed the killing of a prominent journalist in Ukraine, Georgy Gongadze, whose murder in 2000 became a rallying cry of the “Orange Revolution” that swept that country in 2004.
One proponent of that line of thinking seems to be Mr. Putin himself. “We have information, and it is reliable,” he said in Dresden on Tuesday, “that many people hiding from Russian justice have long been nurturing the idea of sacrificing somebody in order to create a wave of anti-Russian feeling in the world.”
The hall where Ms. Politkovskaya’s coffin lay Tuesday had a capacity of 1,000; hundreds more lined up outside. After a few short eulogies, they filed past, laying flowers in piles that grew high and higher, and then dispersed in the rain.
The Guardian : '655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
by Sarah Boseley | health editor | October 11, 2006
The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.
In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion, a figure that was hugely controversial. Their new study, they say, reaffirms the accuracy of their survey of two years ago and moves it on.
"Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone," write the authors, Gilbert Burnham and colleagues.
"At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe that an independent international body to monitor compliance with the Geneva conventions and other humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed. With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians trapped in conflict might be able to lessen the tragic human cost of future wars."
The epidemiological research was carried out on the ground by teams of doctors moving from house to house, questioning families and examining death certificates. Between May and July this year, they visited 1,849 households in 47 separated clusters across the length and breadth of Iraq. The doctors asked about deaths among members of the household in a period before the invasion, from January 2002 to March 2003, and about deaths since. In 92% of cases, they were shown death certificates confirming the cause.
A total of 629 deaths were reported, of which 547 - or 87% - occurred after the invasion. The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.
Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.
"Since 2004, and especially recently," writes the Lancet editor, Richard Horton in a commentary, "independent observers have recognised that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated dramatically." The new study, he continues, "corroborate the impression that Iraq is descending into bloodthirsty chaos".
Yet, he writes, "absolute despair would be the wrong response. Instead, the disaster that is the west's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and wellbeing in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.
"Health is now the most important foreign policy issue of our time. Health and wellbeing - their underpinning values, their diverse array of interventions and their goals of healing - offer several original dimensions for a renewed foreign policy that might at least be one positive legacy of our misadventure in Iraq."
by Sarah Boseley | health editor | October 11, 2006
The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.
In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion, a figure that was hugely controversial. Their new study, they say, reaffirms the accuracy of their survey of two years ago and moves it on.
"Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone," write the authors, Gilbert Burnham and colleagues.
"At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe that an independent international body to monitor compliance with the Geneva conventions and other humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed. With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians trapped in conflict might be able to lessen the tragic human cost of future wars."
The epidemiological research was carried out on the ground by teams of doctors moving from house to house, questioning families and examining death certificates. Between May and July this year, they visited 1,849 households in 47 separated clusters across the length and breadth of Iraq. The doctors asked about deaths among members of the household in a period before the invasion, from January 2002 to March 2003, and about deaths since. In 92% of cases, they were shown death certificates confirming the cause.
A total of 629 deaths were reported, of which 547 - or 87% - occurred after the invasion. The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.
Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.
"Since 2004, and especially recently," writes the Lancet editor, Richard Horton in a commentary, "independent observers have recognised that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated dramatically." The new study, he continues, "corroborate the impression that Iraq is descending into bloodthirsty chaos".
Yet, he writes, "absolute despair would be the wrong response. Instead, the disaster that is the west's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and wellbeing in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.
"Health is now the most important foreign policy issue of our time. Health and wellbeing - their underpinning values, their diverse array of interventions and their goals of healing - offer several original dimensions for a renewed foreign policy that might at least be one positive legacy of our misadventure in Iraq."
Guardian : End the politics of humiliation
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
End the politics of humiliation
by Richard Horton | October 11, 2006
The figures from Iraq are now confirmed. Nobody believed the Lancet report in 2004 from a group of American and Iraqi public-health scientists who surveyed homes across the country and found that as many as 100,000 additional Iraqi deaths had taken place since the coalition invasion in March, 2003. A raft of government ministers were deployed to destroy the credibility of the findings and, in large part, they succeeded. But now their denials have come back to haunt them.
The same team from Johns Hopkins University worked with Iraqi doctors to visit over 1,800 homes throughout the country. These homes were selected randomly to make sure that no bias could creep in to their calculations. Such a random selection method is absolutely essential if the figures are to be believed.
They identified over 12,000 family members and tracked those who had died over an interval that spanned both pre- and post-invasion periods. The Iraqi interviewers spoke fluent English as well as Arabic and they were well trained to collect the information they were seeking. They asked permission from every family to use the data they wanted. And they chased down death certificates in over four out of five cases to make sure that they had a double check on the numbers and causes of death given to them by family members.
All of these checks and balances mean that the 650,000 additional Iraqi casualties they report since the invasion are the most reliable estimates we have of civilian deaths. Most of these deaths have taken place among young men aged between 15 and 44.
Not only do we have a better understanding of the toll our invasion has had on the country, but we also understand better just how those deaths have come about. Before the invasion only a tiny proportion of deaths were due to violence. But since the invasion over half of deaths are from violent causes. It is our occupation and our continued presence in Iraq that is fuelling this violence. To claim that the terrorist threat was always there is simply disproven by these findings.
The nature of these causes has changed too. Early on in the post-invasion period deaths were made worse by aerial bombing. But now gunshot wounds and car bombs are having a far greater effect. Far from our presence in Iraq stabilising the chaos or alleviating the rate at which casualties are mounting, we seem to be making the situation go from bad to worse. In each year since the invasion took place, the mortality rates due to violence have increased. In the year until June 2006, the mortality rate from violence has increased one-hundred-and-twenty times.
The total figure of 650,000 is truly staggering. It represents 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population. Back in 2004, the Lancet was criticised for publishing a number that seemed to have a high degree of uncertainty. The best estimate then was 98,000 deaths. But the uncertainty meant that it could have been as low as 8,000 or as high as 194,000. But now the measure of uncertainty still shows just how terrible our intervention in Iraq has been.
The lowest possible figure is 400,000 deaths and the highest figure is over 900,000 deaths. Even at our most optimistic moments in looking at these numbers, we have to concede that we have created a humanitarian disaster of unprecedented proportions for a foreign policy that was supposed to protect civilian populations, not subject them to ever-greater harm.
Why is this Lancet estimate so much higher than the figures put out by President Bush or Iraqi Body Count? They put the number of casualties in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. To be fair, Iraqi Body Count does not claim to publish accurate absolute numbers of deaths. Instead, their figures are valuable for measuring trends.
But the reason for the discrepancy between these official estimates and the new figure of 650,000 deaths lies in the way the number is sought. Passive surveillance, the most common method used to estimate numbers of civilian deaths, will always underestimate the total number of casualties. We know this from past wars and conflict zones where the estimates have been too low by a factor of ten or even twenty times.
Only when you go out and knock on the doors of families, actively looking for deaths, do you begin to get close to the right number. This method is now tried and tested. It has been the basis for mortality estimations in war zones such as Darfur and the Congo. Interestingly, when we have reported figures from these countries, politicians do not challenge them. They frown, nod their heads, and agree that the situation is grave and intolerable. The international community must act, they say.
When it comes to Iraq, the story is different. Expect the current government to mobilise all its efforts to undermine the work done by this American and Iraqi team. Expect the government to criticise the Lancet for being too political. Expect the government to do all it can to dismiss this story and wash its hands of its responsibilities to take these latest findings seriously.
But if we were talking about the risk of smoking to the population and we published research demonstrating the impact of tobacco on mortality, few would dispute the message or the importance of scientists and medical journals in being actively engaged in a public debate. For Iraq, violence is the public-health priority right now. It is a proper subject for science and it a proper subject for a medical journal to comment on.
So what is the right conclusion from this work? How should this latest research inform public policy? First, Iraq is an unequivocal humanitarian emergency. Civilians are currently being harmed by our presences in Iraq, not helped. That should force us to pause and ask what we are doing and why. There is no shame in saying that we have got the policy wrong. Second, we have a legal obligation under the Geneva conventions to do all we can to protect civilian populations. These findings show that not only are we not adhering to this legal obligation, but also that we are progressively subverting it year on year.
And finally, we can truthfully say that our foreign policy - based as it is on 19th century notions of the nation state - is long past its sell-by date. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy: principles that are based on the idea of human security and not national security; health and wellbeing and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition.
The best hope we can have from our terrible misadventure in Iraq is that a new political and social movement will grow to overturn this politics of humiliation. We are one human family. Let's act like it.
by Richard Horton | October 11, 2006
The figures from Iraq are now confirmed. Nobody believed the Lancet report in 2004 from a group of American and Iraqi public-health scientists who surveyed homes across the country and found that as many as 100,000 additional Iraqi deaths had taken place since the coalition invasion in March, 2003. A raft of government ministers were deployed to destroy the credibility of the findings and, in large part, they succeeded. But now their denials have come back to haunt them.
The same team from Johns Hopkins University worked with Iraqi doctors to visit over 1,800 homes throughout the country. These homes were selected randomly to make sure that no bias could creep in to their calculations. Such a random selection method is absolutely essential if the figures are to be believed.
They identified over 12,000 family members and tracked those who had died over an interval that spanned both pre- and post-invasion periods. The Iraqi interviewers spoke fluent English as well as Arabic and they were well trained to collect the information they were seeking. They asked permission from every family to use the data they wanted. And they chased down death certificates in over four out of five cases to make sure that they had a double check on the numbers and causes of death given to them by family members.
All of these checks and balances mean that the 650,000 additional Iraqi casualties they report since the invasion are the most reliable estimates we have of civilian deaths. Most of these deaths have taken place among young men aged between 15 and 44.
Not only do we have a better understanding of the toll our invasion has had on the country, but we also understand better just how those deaths have come about. Before the invasion only a tiny proportion of deaths were due to violence. But since the invasion over half of deaths are from violent causes. It is our occupation and our continued presence in Iraq that is fuelling this violence. To claim that the terrorist threat was always there is simply disproven by these findings.
The nature of these causes has changed too. Early on in the post-invasion period deaths were made worse by aerial bombing. But now gunshot wounds and car bombs are having a far greater effect. Far from our presence in Iraq stabilising the chaos or alleviating the rate at which casualties are mounting, we seem to be making the situation go from bad to worse. In each year since the invasion took place, the mortality rates due to violence have increased. In the year until June 2006, the mortality rate from violence has increased one-hundred-and-twenty times.
The total figure of 650,000 is truly staggering. It represents 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population. Back in 2004, the Lancet was criticised for publishing a number that seemed to have a high degree of uncertainty. The best estimate then was 98,000 deaths. But the uncertainty meant that it could have been as low as 8,000 or as high as 194,000. But now the measure of uncertainty still shows just how terrible our intervention in Iraq has been.
The lowest possible figure is 400,000 deaths and the highest figure is over 900,000 deaths. Even at our most optimistic moments in looking at these numbers, we have to concede that we have created a humanitarian disaster of unprecedented proportions for a foreign policy that was supposed to protect civilian populations, not subject them to ever-greater harm.
Why is this Lancet estimate so much higher than the figures put out by President Bush or Iraqi Body Count? They put the number of casualties in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. To be fair, Iraqi Body Count does not claim to publish accurate absolute numbers of deaths. Instead, their figures are valuable for measuring trends.
But the reason for the discrepancy between these official estimates and the new figure of 650,000 deaths lies in the way the number is sought. Passive surveillance, the most common method used to estimate numbers of civilian deaths, will always underestimate the total number of casualties. We know this from past wars and conflict zones where the estimates have been too low by a factor of ten or even twenty times.
Only when you go out and knock on the doors of families, actively looking for deaths, do you begin to get close to the right number. This method is now tried and tested. It has been the basis for mortality estimations in war zones such as Darfur and the Congo. Interestingly, when we have reported figures from these countries, politicians do not challenge them. They frown, nod their heads, and agree that the situation is grave and intolerable. The international community must act, they say.
When it comes to Iraq, the story is different. Expect the current government to mobilise all its efforts to undermine the work done by this American and Iraqi team. Expect the government to criticise the Lancet for being too political. Expect the government to do all it can to dismiss this story and wash its hands of its responsibilities to take these latest findings seriously.
But if we were talking about the risk of smoking to the population and we published research demonstrating the impact of tobacco on mortality, few would dispute the message or the importance of scientists and medical journals in being actively engaged in a public debate. For Iraq, violence is the public-health priority right now. It is a proper subject for science and it a proper subject for a medical journal to comment on.
So what is the right conclusion from this work? How should this latest research inform public policy? First, Iraq is an unequivocal humanitarian emergency. Civilians are currently being harmed by our presences in Iraq, not helped. That should force us to pause and ask what we are doing and why. There is no shame in saying that we have got the policy wrong. Second, we have a legal obligation under the Geneva conventions to do all we can to protect civilian populations. These findings show that not only are we not adhering to this legal obligation, but also that we are progressively subverting it year on year.
And finally, we can truthfully say that our foreign policy - based as it is on 19th century notions of the nation state - is long past its sell-by date. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy: principles that are based on the idea of human security and not national security; health and wellbeing and not economic self-interest and territorial ambition.
The best hope we can have from our terrible misadventure in Iraq is that a new political and social movement will grow to overturn this politics of humiliation. We are one human family. Let's act like it.
CNN : Transcript: Bush's news conference
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Transcript: Bush's news conference
October 11, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush held a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday, addressing topics including North Korea, Iraq and the Foley scandal. Here is a full transcript of his opening comments and a question-and-answer session.
BUSH: Before I take your questions, I'd like to discuss a couple subjects.
First, I want to briefly mention that today we've released the actual budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended on September the 30th. These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal budget deficit in half, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule.
The budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work. By restraining spending in Washington and allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, economy's creating jobs and reducing the deficit and making our nation a more prosperous nation for all our citizens.
I'm going to talk about the pro-growth economic policies that helped bring about the dramatic reduction in the deficit this afternoon. And I'm going to remind our fellow citizens that good tax policy has a lot to do with keeping the economy strong, and therefore we'll continue to urge the Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
North Korea
BUSH: I also want to talk about the unfolding situation in North Korea.
Earlier this week, the government of North Korea proclaimed to the world that it had conducted a successful nuclear test. The United States is working to confirm North Korea's claim, but this claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and stability. (Watch the president demand North Korea stick to its promises -- 2:34 Video)
In response to North Korea's actions, we're working with our partners in the region and the United Nations Security Council to ensure there are serious repercussions for the regime in Pyongyang.
I've spoken with other world leaders, including Japan, China, South Korea and Russia. We all agree that there must be a strong Security Council resolution that will require North Korea to abide by its international commitments to dismantle its nuclear programs.
This resolution should also specify a series of measures to prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear or missile technologies and prevent financial transactions or asset transfers that would help North Korea develop its nuclear missile capabilities.
Last year, North Korea agreed to a path to a better future for its people in the six-party talks. September of last year, we had an agreement with North Korea.
It came about in the form of what we call the six-party joint statement. It offered the prospect for normalized relations with both Japan and the United States. It talked about economic cooperation and energy trade and investment.
In that joint statement, North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to adhering to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.
They agreed.
The United States affirmed that we have no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. We affirmed that we have no intention of attacking North Korea.
With its actions this week, North Korea has once again chosen to reject the prospect for a better future offered by the six-party joint statement. Instead, it has opted to raise tensions in the region.
I'm pleased that the nations in the region are making clear to North Korea what is at stake.
I thank China, South Korea, Japan and Russia for their strong statements of condemnation of North Korea's actions.
Peace on the Korean Peninsula requires that these nations send a clear message to Pyongyang that its actions will not be tolerated. And I appreciate their leadership.
The United States remains committed to diplomacy. The United States also reserves all options to defend our friends and our interests in the region against the threats from North Korea.
So in response to North Korea's provocation, we will increase defense cooperation with our allies, including cooperation on ballistic missile defense to protect against North Korean aggression, and cooperation to prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear and missile technologies.
Our goals remain clear: peace and security in Northeast Asia and a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
We will take the necessary actions to achieve these goals. We will work with the United Nations. We'll support our allies in the region. And together we will ensure that North Korea understands the consequences if it continues down its current path.
Iraq
BUSH: I'd like to discus the latest developments in Iraq.
This morning I just had a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and General George Casey, who's in town today. General Casey, as you know, is the top commander on the ground in Iraq.
The brutality of Iraq's enemies has been on full display in recent days. Earlier this week, Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi lost his brother, Major General Hashimi, when gunmen dressed in police uniforms broke into his house and shot him in the head. Only a few months ago, his sister and another brother were assassinated.
On behalf of the United States, I express my heartfelt condolences to the al-Hashimi family. And we express our condolences to all those who have suffered at the hands of these brutal killers.
The situation is difficult in Iraq, no question about it.
The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals and sectarian militias. Attacks and casualties has risen during the Ramadan period. A rise in violence has occurred every Ramadan period in the last three years.
Attacks and casualties have also increased recently because our forces are confronting the enemy in Baghdad and in other parts of Iraq. The past weekend, U.S. and Iraqi forces engaged militias, or members of an illegal militia, during a mission to capture a high- value target.
The reason I bring this up is that we're on the move; we're taking action; we're helping this young democracy succeed.
The reasons we went after the illegal militia was to capture a man responsible for killing many innocent Iraqis, and we accomplished that mission.
Our troops have increased their presence on the streets of Baghdad.
Together with Iraqi forces, they're working to ensure that terrorists and death squads cannot intimidate the local population and operate murder rings.
Amid the violence, important political developments are also taking place.
The Iraqi legislature reached a compromise and set up a process for addressing the difficult issues of federalism and constitutional reform.
In addition, the government of Prime Minister Maliki has taken three important steps to build confidence in his government and in the Iraqi security forces.
First, Prime Minister Maliki announced a plan to bring together Sunni and Shia parties and stop sectarian violence.
The prime minister's plan has received support from every major political group in Iraq, including some hard-line Sunni elements that chose not to join the unity government.
Among the steps the prime minister announced is a new system of local and neighborhood committees, made up of both Sunni and Shia members, that will work directly with Iraqi security forces to resolve tensions and stop sectarian strife.
Second, this past weekend Prime Minister Maliki met with tribal leaders from the Anbar Province. These tribal leaders told him they've had enough of the terrorists seeking to control the Sunni heartland, and they're ready to stand up and fight al Qaeda.
The prime minister told them that he welcomed their support and would help them.
Third, Prime Minister Maliki's government suspended the 8th Brigade, 2nd Division of the National Police after learning that this unit was not intervening to stop sectarian violence in and around Baghdad.
This police brigade has been de-certified by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. It's been removed from service. It's now being reviewed and re-trained.
With this action, the Iraqi government's made clear it's not going to tolerate the infiltration of the Iraqi security forces by militias and sectarians interests.
The reason I bring this up -- these examples up is that there's a political process that's going forward. And it's the combination of security and a political process that will enable the United States to achieve our objective, which is an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself and be an ally in this war on terror.
Iraq's government -- Iraq's democratic government is just four months old. Yet in the face of terrorist threats and sectarian violence, Iraq's new leaders are beginning to make tough choices.
And as they make these tough decisions, we'll stand with them. We'll help them. It's in our interests that Iraq succeed.
Look, I fully understand the American people are seeing unspeakable violence on their TV screens. These are tough times in Iraq.
The enemy's doing everything within its power to destroy the government and to drive us out of the Middle East, starting with driving us out of Iraq before the mission is done.
The stakes are high. As a matter of fact, they couldn't be higher.
If we were to abandon that country before the Iraqis can defend their young democracy, the terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America.
How do I know that would happen? Because that's what the enemy has told us would happen. That's what they have said.
And as commander in chief of the United States military, and as a person working to secure this country, I take the words of the enemy very seriously, and so should the American people.
We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions or used to inflict economic damage on the West.
By helping the Iraqis build a democracy -- an Iraqi-style democracy -- we will deal a major blow to terrorist and extremists, we'll bring hope to a troubled region, and we'll make this country more secure.
With that, I'll take some questions, starting with Terry Hunt.
Questions and answers
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Democrats say that North Korea's reported test shows that your policy has been a failure; that you got bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction while North Korea was moving ahead with the bomb.
Is your administration to blame for letting North Korea get this far?
BUSH: North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time -- long before I came into office.
And it's a threat that we've got to take seriously. And we do, of course.
In 1994, the government -- our government entered into a bilateral arrangement with the North Koreans that worked to make sure that they don't have the capacity to develop a bomb. And North Korea agreed that there would be no program whatsoever toward the development of a weapon.
And yet we came into office and discovered that they were developing a program, unbeknownst to the folks with whom they signed the agreement, the United States government. And we confronted them with that evidence, and they admitted it was true, and then left the agreement that they had signed with the U.S. government.
And my point -- and then, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we once again had North Korea at the table, this time with other parties at the table. And they agreed once again through this statement, as a result of the six-party talks, to verifiably show that they weren't advancing a nuclear weapons program. And they chose again to leave.
And my point to you is that it's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process. It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for this country -- a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions.
And what's changed since then is that we now have other parties at the table who have made it clear to North Korea that they share the same goals of the United States, which is a nuclear-weapons-free peninsula.
The -- you know, I -- obviously I'm listening very carefully to this debate.
I can remember the time when it was said that, "The Bush administration goes it alone too often in the world," which I always thought was a bogus claim to begin with. And now all of a sudden, people are saying, you know, "The Bush administration ought to be going it alone with North Korea."
But it didn't work in the past, is my point. The strategy did not work.
I learned a lesson from that and decided that the best way to convince Kim Jong Il to change his mind on a nuclear weapons program is to have others send the same message.
And so in my phone calls that I recently made right after the test I lamented the fact that he had tested to Hu Jintao and also lamented the fact that Hu Jintao had publicly asked him not to test.
I talked to the South Korean president, and I said, "It ought to be clear to us now that we must continue to work together to make it abundantly clear to the leader in North Korea that there's a better way forward; when he walks away from agreement he's not just walking away from the table with the United States as the only participant. He's walking away from a table that others are sitting at."
And my point to you is: In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand. And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you're alone.
And so, obviously, I made the decision that the bilateral negotiations wouldn't work. And the reason I made that decision is because they didn't.
And we'll continue to work to come up with a diplomatic solution to North Korea. This is a serious issue.
But I want to remind our fellow citizens that the North Korea issue was serious for years. And I'll also remind our citizens that we want to make sure that we solve this problem diplomatically. We've got to give every effort to do so.
But in my discussions with our partners, I reassured them that the security agreements we have with them will be enforced, if need be. And that's in particular to South Korea and Japan.
QUESTION: Senator Warner says Iraq appears to be drifting sideways. And James Baker says a change in strategy may be needed.
Are you willing to acknowledge that a change may be needed?
BUSH: We're constantly changing tactics to achieve a strategic goal. Our strategic goal is a country which can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself.
The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate.
The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave. And they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs.
They want to control oil resources and they want to plot and plan and attack us again. That's their objectives.
And so -- and our strategic objective is to prevent them from doing that. And we're constantly changing tactics to achieve that objective. And I appreciate Senator Warner going over there and taking a look.
I want you to notice what he did say is: If the plan is now not working, the plan that's in place isn't working, America needs to adjust. I completely agree. That's what I talked to General Casey about.
I said: General, the Baghdad security plan is in its early implementation. I support you strongly but, if you come into this office and say we need to do something differently, I support you. If you need more troops, I support you. If you're going to devise a new strategy, we're with you. Because I trust General Casey to make the judgments necessary to put the tactics in place to help us achieve an objective.
And I appreciate Jimmy Baker's willingness to -- he and Lee Hamilton are putting this -- they got a group they put together that -- I think it was Congressman Wolf's suggestion -- or passed into law.
We supported the idea. I think it's good to have some of our elder statesmen -- I hate to call Baker an elder statesman -- but to go over there and take a look and to come back and make recommendations.
Somebody said he said, "Well, you know, cut-and-run isn't working." That's not our policy.
Our policy is to help this country succeed, because I understand the stakes. And I'm going to repeat them one more time. As a matter of fact, I'm going to spend a lot of time repeating the stakes about what life is like in the Middle East.
It is conceivable that there will be a world in which radical forms -- extreme forms of religion fight each other for influence in the Middle East; in which they've got the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon.
And when you throw into that mix a nuclear weapon in the hands of a sworn enemy of the United States, you begin to see an environment that would cause some later on in history to look back and say, "How come they couldn't see the problem? What happened to them in the year 2006? Why weren't they able to see the problems now and deal with them before it came too late?"
And so Iraq is an important part of dealing with this problem. And my vow to the American people is I understand the stakes, and I understand what it would mean for us to leave before the job is done.
And I look forward to listening to how -- what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton say about how to get the job done.
I appreciate them working on this issue, because I think they understand what I know: The stakes are high.
And the stakes are high when it comes to developing a Palestinian state so that Israel can live at peace.
And the stakes are high when it comes to making sure the young democracy of Lebanon is able to fend off the extremists and radicals that want to crater that democracy.
This is a real challenge of the 21st century. I like to tell people we're in an ideological struggle. And it's a struggle between extremists and radicals and people of moderation who want to simply live a peaceful life.
And the calling of this country and in this century is whether or not we will help the forces of moderation prevail. That's the fundamental question facing the United States of America beyond my presidency.
And you can tell I've made my choice. And I made my choice because the most solemn duty of the American president, in government, is to protect this country from harm.
Martha -- I'm sure with a profound follow-up.
QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea, Mr. President?
BUSH: Please.
QUESTION: You talk about failures of the past administration with the policy toward North Korea.
Again, how can you say your policy is more successful, given that North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear weapon?
And also, if you wouldn't mind, what is the red line for North Korea, given what has happened over the past few months?
BUSH: My point was: Bilateral negotiations didn't work. You know, I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work.
And, therefore, I thought it was important to change how we approached the problem so that we could solve it diplomatically.
And I firmly believe that with North Korea -- and with Iran -- that it is best to deal with these regimes with more than one voice.
Because I understand how it works. What ends up happening is that, you know, we say to a country such as North Korea, "Here's a reasonable way forward." They try to extract more at the negotiating table or they've got a different objective.
And then they go and say, "Wait a minute; the United States is being unreasonable."
They make a threat. They could -- you know, they say the world is about to fall apart because of the United States's problem. And, all of a sudden, we become the issue.
But the United States' message to North Korea and Iran and the people in both countries is that we have -- we want to solve the issues peacefully.
We said: There's a better way forward for you. Here's a chance, for example, to help your country economically. And all you got to do is verifiably show that you're -- in Iran's cases, that you've suspended your weapons program; in North Korea's case, that you've got international safeguards on your program. Which they agreed to, by the way.
And so my point is that, to the American people, I say: Look, we want to solve this diplomatically. It's important for the president to say to the American people: Diplomacy was what is our first choice. And I've now outlined a strategy.
And I think it is a hopeful sign that China is now an integral partner in helping North Korea understand that it's just not the United States speaking to them.
And it's an important sign to North Korea that South Korea -- a country which obviously is deeply concerned about North Korean activities -- South Korea is a partner.
If North Korea decides that, you know, they don't like what's being said, they're not just stiffing the United States -- I don't know if that's a diplomatic word or not -- but they're sending a message to countries in the neighborhood that they really don't care what other countries think, which leads to further isolation.
And when we get a U.N. Security Council resolution, it will help us deal with issues like proliferation and his ability -- he, being Kim Jong Il's ability to attract money to continue to develop his program.
QUESTION: What about the red line, sir?
BUSH: Well, the world has made it clear that these tests caused us to come together and work in the United Nations to send a clear message to the North Korean regime. We're bound up together with a common strategy to solve this issue peacefully, through diplomatic means.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
BUSH: If I might say, that is a beautiful suit.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. My tailor appreciates that.
BUSH: And I can't see anybody else who even comes close.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I'll be happy to pass along my tailor's number ... if you'd like that, sir.
BUSH: I'll take that back. I will recognize that -- please?
QUESTION: On May 23rd, 2003, sir, you said -- you effectively drew a line in the sand. You said, "We will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea." And, yet, now it appears that they have crossed that line. And I'm wondering what now, sir, do you say to both the American people and the international community vis-a-vis what has happened over the last 48 hours?
BUSH: No, I appreciate that. And I think it's very important for the American people and North Korea to understand that that statement still stands. And one way to make sure that we're able to achieve our objective is to have other people join us in making it clear to North Korea that they share that objective.
And that's what's changed. That's what changed over a relatively quick period of time.
It used to be that the United States would say that, and that would be kind of a stand-alone statement. Now, when that statement is said, there are other nations in the neighborhood saying it.
And so we'll give diplomacy a chance to work. It is very important for us to solve these problems diplomatically. And I thank the leaders of -- listen, when I call them on the phone, we're strategizing.
This isn't, you know: Oh, please stand up and say something. This is: How can we continue to work together to solve this problem? And that is a substantial change from the previous times.
Suzanne, the second -- the first best-dressed person here. Sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Back on Iraq, a group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war.
That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure? And do you consider this a credible report?
BUSH: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. (Watch Bush reject the study findings as "not credible" -- 1:33 Video)
I do -- I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me. And it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence.
I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate.
And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel -- can feel, you know, at peace.
No question it's violent. But this report is one -- they put it out before. It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited.
But I, you know, talk to people like General Casey. And, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.
QUESTION: So the figure's 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?
BUSH: I, you know, I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. 600,000 or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible. Thank you.
QUESTION: Since you last held a news conference here in the Rose Garden about a month ago, Republicans across the country have seen races that were once safe tighten, with the tide turning, according to several polls, toward the Democrats.
Understanding that you don't lead by looking at polls...
BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you kindly.
QUESTION: ... as you've said many times, are you still confident Republicans will hold the House and Senate?
BUSH: Yes. I am.
QUESTION: If so, why? And do you believe that the biggest drag on the Republican Party is the situation in Iraq?
BUSH: I believe that the situation in Iraq is, no question, tough on the American psyche -- like I said, I think, at this very spot, last time I faced the press corps.
And it's serious business. Look, the American people want to know: Can we win? That's what they want to know. And we do we have a plan to win?
There are some who say: Get out; it's not worth it. And those are some of the voices, by the way, in the Democrat Party. Certainly not all Democrats, but some of the loud voices in the party say: Get out.
And so, no question, this is an issue. But so is the economy. And I believe there will be -- I still stand by my prediction we'll have a Republican speaker and Republican leader of the Senate.
And the reason I say that is because I believe the two biggest issues in this campaign are, one, the economy -- and the economy is growing. The national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent.'
We've just discovered, as the result of analyzing new data, that we added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003.
Gas prices are down. Tax cuts are working. And there's a difference of opinion in the campaign about taxes.
And we will keep them low. As a matter of fact, I would like to keep -- make the tax cuts we passed permanent. And the Democrats will raise taxes.
Now, I know they say, "Only on rich people," but that's, in my judgment, having been around here long enough to know, it's just codeword. They're going to raise them on whoever they can raise them on.
And then, on security: The American people know that our biggest job is to protect this country from further attack. And -- because they know there's an enemy that still plots and plans, and there is. There is.
Recently we learned that when British intelligence and U.S. intelligence, with our help, broke up a plot to get on airplanes and blow them up; the planes that were going to fly from Great Britain to here.
And they want to know -- they, the people, want to know: What are we doing to protect them?
There had been some votes on the floor of the Senate and the House that make it abundantly clear we just have a different view of the world.
The vast majority of Democrats voted against a program that will enable us to interrogate high-valued detainees. That was the vote. It was wide open for everybody to see: Should a CIA program go forward or not go forward?
A vast majority of Democrats in the House voted against a program that would have institutionalized the capacity for this government to listen to al Qaeda phone calls or al Qaeda affiliate phone calls coming from outside the country to inside the country.
It's very important for our fellow citizens to recognize that I don't question anybody's patriotism. But I do question a strategy that says we can't give those on the front line of fighting terror the tools necessary to fight terror.
I believe that in order to defend America we must take a threat seriously and defeat an enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here. I don't believe we can wait to respond after attack has occurred.
And so I think these are the two biggest issues. And Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Now, I recognize Democrats say that's not the case. And what I say to the American people when I'm out there is all you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says. Don't believe me that it's a part of the war on terror. Listen to the enemy, or listen to Mr. Zawahiri, the number two of al Qaeda; both of whom made it clear that Iraq is central in their plans.
And I firmly believe that the American people understand that this is different from other war because in this war if we were to leave early, before the job is done, then the enemy will follow us here.
And so I believe that we'll maintain control because we're on the right side of the economic issue and the security issue.
Let's see. Yes, sir. Welcome to the front row.
QUESTION: Thank you. It's good to be here. Appreciate it.
Following up on that answer, one of the things Democrats complain about is the way you portray their position...
BUSH: Oh, really?
QUESTION: ... in wanting to fight the war on terror. They would say you portray is as either they support exactly what you want to do or they want to do nothing. We hear it in some of your speeches.
Is it fair to portray it to the American people that way?
BUSH: Well, I think it's fair to use the words of people in Congress or their votes. The vote was, on the Hamdan legislation: Do you want to continue a program that enabled us to interrogate folks or not?
And all I was doing was reciting the votes.
I would cite my opponent in the 2004 campaign, when he said there needs to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq. I characterize that as cut and run, because I believe it is cut and run. In other words, I've been using either their votes or their words to characterize their positions.
QUESTION: But they don't say, "Cut and run."
BUSH: Well, they may not use, "Cut and run," but they say, "Date certain," as to when to get out before the job is done; that is cut and run. You know, nobody's accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary; I understand that.
And maybe their words are more sophisticated than mine. But when you pull out before the job is done, that's cut and run, as far as I'm concerned. And that's cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned.
And so, yes, I'm going to continue reminding them of their words and their votes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. My best suit's in the cleaners.
BUSH: That's not even a suit.
QUESTION: I know. You got to give me more time in the morning with the news conference.
BUSH: Yes, I know. You like to wake up about 8:30...
QUESTION: I want to ask you...
BUSH: High-price news guys...
QUESTION: Yes ... I want to ask you a little bit about -- I want to follow on the criticism that you have received, or the suggestions from Senator Warner and from James Baker...
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: ... and now Olympia Snowe. This is not exactly the board of directors for moveon.org.
BUSH: That's true.
QUESTION: Do you feel in some way that there is some shift going on in terms of the general support for the war in Iraq and your strategy, specifically? And do you ever feel like the walls are closing in on you, in terms of support for this?
BUSH: I understand how hard it is. And I also understand the stakes. And let me go back to Senator Warner. Senator Warner said: If the plan isn't working, adjust. I agree completely.
You know, I haven't seen Baker's report yet. But one of the things I'd remind you of is that I don't hear those people saying: Get out before the job is done.
They're saying: Be flexible. And we are.
I believe that, you know, you empower your generals to make the decisions -- the recommendations on what we do to win.
You can't fight a war from Washington. In other words, you can't make the tactical decisions necessary to win. It just won't work.
And I trust General Casey. I find him to be one of the really competent, decent guys.
Let me finish, please, for a second. Plus, I couldn't hear you, but I saw you talking, anyway.
I value his judgment. I value his -- I know he wants to succeed. And I value his objectivity. And he -- what's important for the president is when I open up that door in there and General Casey walks in, he feels confident to tell me what's on his mind. "Here's what's going right and here's what's going wrong and here's what we're doing about it."
And so for those folks saying make sure there's flexibility, I couldn't agree more with you. And I think the characterization of, you know, "Stay the course," is about a quarter right.
Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change.
Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done. We're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq.
Defeat in Iraq will embolden an enemy. And I want to repeat to you the reality of the world in which we live. If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy's coming after us. And most Americans -- back to your question -- understand we've got to defeat them there so we don't face them here. It's a different kind of war but, nevertheless, it is a war. And -- go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering: Two months ago, Prime Minister Maliki was here and you talked about how we had to be nimble and facile in our approach. And my question is...
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: ... are we being nimble and facile in the right way? Is what General Casey telling you the most effective advice? Because it would seem that, in the two months since Prime Minister Maliki was here, things have only gotten more bloody in Iraq?
BUSH: No question, Ramadan's here. No question, we're engaging the enemy more than we were before. And by the way, when you engage the enemy, it causes there to be more action and more kinetic action.
And the fundamental question is: Do I get good advice from Casey? And the answer is: I believe I do. I believe I do.
Yes?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke very passionately before about acting before it was too late on major issues. You faced one of those moments in early 2003. This was when the North Koreans had thrown out the international inspectors, said they were going to go ahead and turn their fuel into weapons.
And you had a moment to tell them that they would face serious consequences if they were going to do that. You also had what may have been the last moment for any American president to destroy their fuel supplies while they were all in one place.
BUSH: You mean bombing them?
QUESTION: Whatever action you might have needed to take, including military action against the site, the one site at the time, where they were getting ready...
BUSH: I just wanted to clarify. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
QUESTION: Yes. And you chose not to. And I was wondering whether in retrospect you regret that decision at all, whether or not you think that because of the long history of deception that you pointed out before you should have acted differently.
BUSH: I used the moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue -- North Korean issue -- because I obviously look at all options, all the time. And I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort that was renewed and reinvigorated by having China and South Korea and Japan and Russia joining us in convincing Kim Jong Il there's a better way forward.
And, frankly, I was quite optimistic that we had succeeded last September when we had this joint statement, which you adequately covered.
And, yet, he walked away from it. He decided: Well, maybe his word doesn't mean anything.
And so we will continue to work diplomatically to solve the problem. That's what I owe the American people, to come up with a diplomatic solution.
I also made it clear, and I will repeat, that we have security obligations in the region that I reconfirmed to our partners.
Sir? Washington Post man?
QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to follow up on an earlier question about your rhetoric on Iran and North Korea.
You said yesterday, in your statement, that the North Korean nuclear test was unacceptable.
Your chief negotiator for the six-party talks said last week that North Korea has a choice, of either having weapons or having a future.
When you spoke, a month or so ago, to the American Legion, you talked about Iran and said: There must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
I'm wondering, sir -- your administration has issued these kinds of warning pretty regularly over the last five years. And yet these countries have pursued their nuclear programs.
I'm wondering: What is different about the current set of warnings? And do you think the administration -- our government runs the risk of looking feckless to world by issuing these kinds of warnings regularly without response from the countries?
BUSH: That's a fair question. First of all, I am making it clear our policy hadn't changed.
It's important for the folks to understand that we don't continually shift our goals based upon, you know, polls or whatever.
See, I think clarity of purpose is very important to rally a diplomatic effort to solve the problem. And so I try to speak as clearly as I can and make sure there's no ambiguity in our position.
I also found that's a pretty good way to help rally a diplomatic effort that I believe will more likely work.
I know this sounds just saying it over and over again, but it's -- rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe that that is the best strategy to solve the problem.
I mean, one has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards. It is much easier for a nation to hear what I believe are legitimate demands if there's more than one voice speaking. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.
And to answer your question as to whether or not the words will be empty, I would suggest that, quite the contrary, that we not only have spoken about the goals, but as a result of working together, our friends, Iran and North Korea are looking at a different diplomatic scenario.
I thought you were going to ask the question, following up on Sanger: How come you don't use military action now?
You kind of hinted it. You didn't say it.
Now, and some wonder that. As a matter of fact, I'm asked questions around the country: Just go ahead and use the military. And my answer is is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military. And I believe the diplomacy is, you know, we're making progress when we've got others at the table, you know?
I will ask myself a follow-up: If that's the case, why did you use military action in Iraq?
And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy. Remember it? We tried resolution after resolution after resolution. All these, these -- these situations are, each of them, different and require a different response, a different effort to try to resolve this peacefully.
And we'll continue to do so.
The inability to convince people to move forward speaks volumes about them. It ought to say to all the world that we're dealing with people that maybe don't want peace -- which, in my judgment, in order for there to be peace requires an international response.
It says volumes about a person who signs an agreement with one administration and signs an agreement or speaks about an agreement with another administration and it doesn't honor the agreement.
It points up the fact that these are dangerous regimes and requires an international effort to work in concert.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'd like to turn back to North Korea for a bit. You've said that bilateral talks didn't work. Secretary Baker has said that maybe they should be considered maybe at some point and under certain conditions.
Are you prepared now to just take the possibility of one-on-one talks with North Korea off the table?
BUSH: I'm saying as loud as I can and as clear as I can that there is a better way forward for North Korea and that we will work within the context of the six-party talks.
People say: You don't talk to North Korea. Look, we had a representative -- a United States representative -- at the table in the six-party talks.
The North Korean leader knows our position. It's easy to understand our position. There is a better way forward for his government.
And people need to review the September '05 document. It's a joint statement that talked about economics and that, you know, we won't attack North Korea. We agreed that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons on the peninsula.
I mean, there is a way forward for the leader of North Korea to choose.
We've made our choice. And so has China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. And that's what's changed.
I also am deeply concerned about the lives of the citizens in that country. I mean, there's -- and that's why I named an envoy, Jay Lefkowitz, to talk about the human condition inside of North Korea. And the reason we do that is we care about how people live, we care about people starving, we care about the fact that there are large concentration camps.
You know, one of the most meaningful moments of my presidency came when a Japanese mother came to the Oval Office to talk about what it was like to have her daughter kidnapped by North Korea.
You can imagine what that was like. It broke my heart. And it should break everybody's heart. But it speaks to the nature of the regime.
And therefore we -- I am convinced that, to solve this diplomatically requires more than just America's voice.
QUESTION: Mr. President, with growing numbers of House members and staffers saying that they knew of and told others about a problem with Mark Foley some years ago, has House Speaker Hastert lost touch within his own ranks? And has the scandal damaged Hastert's credibility and effectiveness in maintaining party control in the midterm elections?
BUSH: No, I think the speaker's strong statements have made it clear to not only the party members, but to the country, that he wants to find out the facts.
All of us want to find out the facts. I mean, this is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and a family that sent a young page up to serve in the Congress.
I appreciated Speaker Hastert's strong declaration of his desire to get to the bottom of it. You know, we want to make sure what we understand what Republicans knew and what Democrats knew in order to find the facts. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
BUSH: Oh, Denny's very credible as far as I'm concerned. And he's done a fine job as speaker, when he stands up and says: I want to know the truth. And I believe yesterday he said that if somebody on his staff, you know, didn't tell him the truth, they're gone. I respect that and appreciate that and believe him.
I think the elections will be decided by security and the economy. I really do. I know this is -- this Foley issue bothers a lot of people, including me.
But I think when they get in that booth, they're going to be thinking about, you know, how best to secure the country from attack and, you know, how best to keep the economy growing.
I think the last time I was out here with you, I reminded you that I understand that the economy is always a salient issue in campaigns. We've had some experience with that in my family, I think I said.
I still think -- believe the economy's an important issue. And I believe, on this issue, there is a huge difference of opinion.
The other day -- by the way, I did bring up the words of the leader of the House when she said, "I love tax cuts."
And then I reminded everybody that if you loved them so much, how come she voted against a lot of tax cuts?
In other words, again, back to your question about whether it's fair to use people's words, I think to say, "I love tax cuts," and then vote against tax cuts is just -- it's worthy -- it's worthy of people's consideration in the political process.
I believe taxes are a big issue in the campaign. And I know how -- I know that how best to protect the country is a big issue, a really big issue. And, you know, there's just a kind of law enforcement mentality that says: Well, we'll respond after attack.
It's not going to work. It's just not going to work. We've got to deal with these problems before they come to -- before they come to our territory.
I understand that some are saying, "Well, he's just trying to scare us."
My job is to look at the intelligence and to -- and I'm going to tell you that there's an enemy out there that would like to do harm again to the United States, because we're in a war. And they have objectives. They want to -- they want to drive us out of parts of the world to establish a caliphate. It's what they have told us.
And it's essential that we listen to the words of the enemy if we want to protect the American people.
And in this debate about which party can handle it better, I will -- I think it's very important that no one question the patriotism or, you know, the loyalty to the country. There is a different mindset, however, that is worth discussing in the course of a campaign, and I'm going to continue to do it. And I believe those two issues will be the issue that drive the election.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, some in the national security community are wondering if, indeed, you are ready to live with a nuclear North Korea.
BUSH: No.
QUESTION: Well, they're saying that that is a possibility.
BUSH: Well, they're wrong.
QUESTION: Well, can I give you...
BUSH: Well, it's a short question -- a short answer. I mean...
QUESTION: One, China is not ready to put teeth behind sanctions, enough teeth to really threaten the regime. And, also, economic sanctions have limited effect on North Korea.
BUSH: We have tried, diplomatically, first.
And this is back to old Michael's question about: Am I serious about saying what I mean? That's why I say what I say, because some people are beginning to wonder whether or not that's the goal. The goal is no nuclear weapon.
Again, I think I've shared with you my views of diplomacy. Diplomacy is a difficult process because everybody's interests aren't exactly the same. We share the same goal, but sometimes the internal issues are different from ours.
And, therefore, it takes a while to get people on the same page. And it takes a while for people to get used to consequences.
And so I wouldn't necessarily characterize these countries' positions as, you know, locked-in positions.
We're constantly dialoguing with them to make sure that there is a common effort to send a clear message.
And the other part of your question was?
QUESTION: And the follow-up, yes. Military options -- there are a menu of options. The White House is saying once diplomacy has run its course and you've run through your timetable, what about military options against North Korea?
BUSH: Well, diplomacy hasn't run its course, that's what I'm trying to explain to you -- a la the Sanger question. And we'll continue working to make sure we give diplomacy a full opportunity to succeed.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke of the troubles in Iraq. And as you know, we have Woodward and we have a shelf full of books about Iraq, and many of them claim that administration policies contributed to the difficulties there.
So I'm wondering: Is there anything you wish you would have done different with regard to Iraq?
BUSH: You know, speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there -- a lot.
I don't know if I set the record or not, but I guess it means that I made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.
And this is the -- this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question and, as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently.
Abu Ghraib: I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground; we weren't a country that was capable of, one the one hand, promoting democracy and then treating people decently. Now the world is seeing that we've held those to account who did this.
It's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back but, I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power.
As you know, the leader in the Senate Intel Committee on -- I think it was CBS News, Axelrod; I'm not sure; you follow your news closely; you can verify this -- said that the world would be better if Saddam were in power. I strongly disagree. When it comes to that decision, which is the decision that caused a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.
And now the fundamental question is: Will this country help this young democracy succeed? And the answer is: We will. We'll change tactics when we need to change tactics to help this young democracy succeed.
But the stakes are high if we were to leave. It means that we would hand over a part of the region to extremists and radicals who would glorify a victory over the United States and use it to become -- use it to recruit. It would give these people a chance to plot and plan and attack. It would give them resources from which to continue their efforts to spread their caliphate.
The stakes are really high.
QUESTION: On a different topic, you have said you will sign the border fence bill to build 700 miles of fence along the U.S. border, but DHS has said it prefers a virtual fence of sensors and cameras, rather than an actual wall.
Will you -- are you committed to building the 700 miles of fence -- actual fencing?
BUSH: Yeah, we're going to do both. We're just going to make sure that we build it in a spot where it works.
I don't -- I don't -- DHS said they want a virtual wall. I don't believe that's the only thing they said. I think you might have truncated their statement, because we're actually building fence, and we're building double fence in particular areas where there is a high vulnerability for people being able to sneak in.
You can't fence the entire border, but what you can do is you can use a combination of fencing and technology to make it easier for the Border Patrol to enforce our border.
I happen to believe, however, that in order to make sure the border is fully secure, we need a guest worker program so people aren't sneaking in in the first place.
And so I look forward to not only implementing that which Congress has funded in a way that says to folks, to the American people: We'll enforce our border.
But I'm going to continue to campaign and work for a comprehensive bill so that whatever we do in terms of equipment and manpower works better.
If somebody's not trying to sneak in to work -- in other words, coming through in a way where they're showing a temporary worker, you know, pass, where they're not using coyotes to smuggle across, where they're not, you know, going through tunnels -- it's going to make it much easier for us to do our job. And that's enforce the border.
So I'm comfortable -- my judgment is people want this country secure. And we've got to do -- have a smart border, which we're in the process of developing now. It's a combination of fencing and technologies, UAVs, sensors.
I don't know if you've ever been down there. But it's a pretty vast part of the country down there. It's hard to enforce that border. You got some rugged country. You've got stretches of territory where you don't even know where the border is.
And you've got urban areas like El Paso or, you know, Southern California where people have been able to sneak in and -- by use of urban corridors.
And so, therefore, fencing makes sense there.
I went down to Arizona, the Arizona sector, and saw a place where there's literally neighbors abutting the border, and people would come -- you know, a hundred of them would rush across the border into a little subdivision and the Border Patrol would catch two or three and 97 would get in.
And they're asking: What are you going to provide to help us do our job?
And in this case, those who are in charge of coming up with the proper strategy to enforce the borders say we need double fencing with space so that the Border Patrol can use that fencing as leverage against people rushing into the country.
And my only point to you is that the strategy to develop this border requires different assets based upon the conditions, based upon what the terrain looks like. And that's what we're doing.
But I repeat to you: When you've got a situation where people are sneaking in to do jobs Americans aren't doing, it's also going to keep a strain on the border.
And so therefore, a temporary worker plan, to me, makes sense. and it's a much more humane program -- approach, by the way. It will certainly help stamp out all these illegal characters that are exploiting human beings; you know, these coyotes that stuff people in the back of 18-wheelers for money.
That's not in character with how this nation works. And I think we ought to -- I think a good program that helps us enforce our border also will see to it that people are treated more humanely.
Thank you for your interest.
October 11, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush held a news conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday, addressing topics including North Korea, Iraq and the Foley scandal. Here is a full transcript of his opening comments and a question-and-answer session.
BUSH: Before I take your questions, I'd like to discuss a couple subjects.
First, I want to briefly mention that today we've released the actual budget numbers for the fiscal year that ended on September the 30th. These numbers show that we have now achieved our goal of cutting the federal budget deficit in half, and we've done it three years ahead of schedule.
The budget numbers are proof that pro-growth economic policies work. By restraining spending in Washington and allowing Americans to keep more of what they earn, economy's creating jobs and reducing the deficit and making our nation a more prosperous nation for all our citizens.
I'm going to talk about the pro-growth economic policies that helped bring about the dramatic reduction in the deficit this afternoon. And I'm going to remind our fellow citizens that good tax policy has a lot to do with keeping the economy strong, and therefore we'll continue to urge the Congress to make the tax cuts permanent.
North Korea
BUSH: I also want to talk about the unfolding situation in North Korea.
Earlier this week, the government of North Korea proclaimed to the world that it had conducted a successful nuclear test. The United States is working to confirm North Korea's claim, but this claim itself constitutes a threat to international peace and stability. (Watch the president demand North Korea stick to its promises -- 2:34 Video)
In response to North Korea's actions, we're working with our partners in the region and the United Nations Security Council to ensure there are serious repercussions for the regime in Pyongyang.
I've spoken with other world leaders, including Japan, China, South Korea and Russia. We all agree that there must be a strong Security Council resolution that will require North Korea to abide by its international commitments to dismantle its nuclear programs.
This resolution should also specify a series of measures to prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear or missile technologies and prevent financial transactions or asset transfers that would help North Korea develop its nuclear missile capabilities.
Last year, North Korea agreed to a path to a better future for its people in the six-party talks. September of last year, we had an agreement with North Korea.
It came about in the form of what we call the six-party joint statement. It offered the prospect for normalized relations with both Japan and the United States. It talked about economic cooperation and energy trade and investment.
In that joint statement, North Korea committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to adhering to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.
They agreed.
The United States affirmed that we have no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula. We affirmed that we have no intention of attacking North Korea.
With its actions this week, North Korea has once again chosen to reject the prospect for a better future offered by the six-party joint statement. Instead, it has opted to raise tensions in the region.
I'm pleased that the nations in the region are making clear to North Korea what is at stake.
I thank China, South Korea, Japan and Russia for their strong statements of condemnation of North Korea's actions.
Peace on the Korean Peninsula requires that these nations send a clear message to Pyongyang that its actions will not be tolerated. And I appreciate their leadership.
The United States remains committed to diplomacy. The United States also reserves all options to defend our friends and our interests in the region against the threats from North Korea.
So in response to North Korea's provocation, we will increase defense cooperation with our allies, including cooperation on ballistic missile defense to protect against North Korean aggression, and cooperation to prevent North Korea from exporting nuclear and missile technologies.
Our goals remain clear: peace and security in Northeast Asia and a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
We will take the necessary actions to achieve these goals. We will work with the United Nations. We'll support our allies in the region. And together we will ensure that North Korea understands the consequences if it continues down its current path.
Iraq
BUSH: I'd like to discus the latest developments in Iraq.
This morning I just had a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and General George Casey, who's in town today. General Casey, as you know, is the top commander on the ground in Iraq.
The brutality of Iraq's enemies has been on full display in recent days. Earlier this week, Deputy President Tariq al-Hashimi lost his brother, Major General Hashimi, when gunmen dressed in police uniforms broke into his house and shot him in the head. Only a few months ago, his sister and another brother were assassinated.
On behalf of the United States, I express my heartfelt condolences to the al-Hashimi family. And we express our condolences to all those who have suffered at the hands of these brutal killers.
The situation is difficult in Iraq, no question about it.
The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals and sectarian militias. Attacks and casualties has risen during the Ramadan period. A rise in violence has occurred every Ramadan period in the last three years.
Attacks and casualties have also increased recently because our forces are confronting the enemy in Baghdad and in other parts of Iraq. The past weekend, U.S. and Iraqi forces engaged militias, or members of an illegal militia, during a mission to capture a high- value target.
The reason I bring this up is that we're on the move; we're taking action; we're helping this young democracy succeed.
The reasons we went after the illegal militia was to capture a man responsible for killing many innocent Iraqis, and we accomplished that mission.
Our troops have increased their presence on the streets of Baghdad.
Together with Iraqi forces, they're working to ensure that terrorists and death squads cannot intimidate the local population and operate murder rings.
Amid the violence, important political developments are also taking place.
The Iraqi legislature reached a compromise and set up a process for addressing the difficult issues of federalism and constitutional reform.
In addition, the government of Prime Minister Maliki has taken three important steps to build confidence in his government and in the Iraqi security forces.
First, Prime Minister Maliki announced a plan to bring together Sunni and Shia parties and stop sectarian violence.
The prime minister's plan has received support from every major political group in Iraq, including some hard-line Sunni elements that chose not to join the unity government.
Among the steps the prime minister announced is a new system of local and neighborhood committees, made up of both Sunni and Shia members, that will work directly with Iraqi security forces to resolve tensions and stop sectarian strife.
Second, this past weekend Prime Minister Maliki met with tribal leaders from the Anbar Province. These tribal leaders told him they've had enough of the terrorists seeking to control the Sunni heartland, and they're ready to stand up and fight al Qaeda.
The prime minister told them that he welcomed their support and would help them.
Third, Prime Minister Maliki's government suspended the 8th Brigade, 2nd Division of the National Police after learning that this unit was not intervening to stop sectarian violence in and around Baghdad.
This police brigade has been de-certified by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. It's been removed from service. It's now being reviewed and re-trained.
With this action, the Iraqi government's made clear it's not going to tolerate the infiltration of the Iraqi security forces by militias and sectarians interests.
The reason I bring this up -- these examples up is that there's a political process that's going forward. And it's the combination of security and a political process that will enable the United States to achieve our objective, which is an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, defend itself and be an ally in this war on terror.
Iraq's government -- Iraq's democratic government is just four months old. Yet in the face of terrorist threats and sectarian violence, Iraq's new leaders are beginning to make tough choices.
And as they make these tough decisions, we'll stand with them. We'll help them. It's in our interests that Iraq succeed.
Look, I fully understand the American people are seeing unspeakable violence on their TV screens. These are tough times in Iraq.
The enemy's doing everything within its power to destroy the government and to drive us out of the Middle East, starting with driving us out of Iraq before the mission is done.
The stakes are high. As a matter of fact, they couldn't be higher.
If we were to abandon that country before the Iraqis can defend their young democracy, the terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America.
How do I know that would happen? Because that's what the enemy has told us would happen. That's what they have said.
And as commander in chief of the United States military, and as a person working to secure this country, I take the words of the enemy very seriously, and so should the American people.
We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions or used to inflict economic damage on the West.
By helping the Iraqis build a democracy -- an Iraqi-style democracy -- we will deal a major blow to terrorist and extremists, we'll bring hope to a troubled region, and we'll make this country more secure.
With that, I'll take some questions, starting with Terry Hunt.
Questions and answers
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Democrats say that North Korea's reported test shows that your policy has been a failure; that you got bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction while North Korea was moving ahead with the bomb.
Is your administration to blame for letting North Korea get this far?
BUSH: North Korea has been trying to acquire bombs and weapons for a long period of time -- long before I came into office.
And it's a threat that we've got to take seriously. And we do, of course.
In 1994, the government -- our government entered into a bilateral arrangement with the North Koreans that worked to make sure that they don't have the capacity to develop a bomb. And North Korea agreed that there would be no program whatsoever toward the development of a weapon.
And yet we came into office and discovered that they were developing a program, unbeknownst to the folks with whom they signed the agreement, the United States government. And we confronted them with that evidence, and they admitted it was true, and then left the agreement that they had signed with the U.S. government.
And my point -- and then, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we once again had North Korea at the table, this time with other parties at the table. And they agreed once again through this statement, as a result of the six-party talks, to verifiably show that they weren't advancing a nuclear weapons program. And they chose again to leave.
And my point to you is that it's the intransigence of the North Korean leader that speaks volumes about the process. It is his unwillingness to choose a way forward for this country -- a better way forward for his country. It is his decisions.
And what's changed since then is that we now have other parties at the table who have made it clear to North Korea that they share the same goals of the United States, which is a nuclear-weapons-free peninsula.
The -- you know, I -- obviously I'm listening very carefully to this debate.
I can remember the time when it was said that, "The Bush administration goes it alone too often in the world," which I always thought was a bogus claim to begin with. And now all of a sudden, people are saying, you know, "The Bush administration ought to be going it alone with North Korea."
But it didn't work in the past, is my point. The strategy did not work.
I learned a lesson from that and decided that the best way to convince Kim Jong Il to change his mind on a nuclear weapons program is to have others send the same message.
And so in my phone calls that I recently made right after the test I lamented the fact that he had tested to Hu Jintao and also lamented the fact that Hu Jintao had publicly asked him not to test.
I talked to the South Korean president, and I said, "It ought to be clear to us now that we must continue to work together to make it abundantly clear to the leader in North Korea that there's a better way forward; when he walks away from agreement he's not just walking away from the table with the United States as the only participant. He's walking away from a table that others are sitting at."
And my point to you is: In order to solve this diplomatically, the United States and our partners must have a strong diplomatic hand. And you have a better diplomatic hand with others, sending the message, than you do when you're alone.
And so, obviously, I made the decision that the bilateral negotiations wouldn't work. And the reason I made that decision is because they didn't.
And we'll continue to work to come up with a diplomatic solution to North Korea. This is a serious issue.
But I want to remind our fellow citizens that the North Korea issue was serious for years. And I'll also remind our citizens that we want to make sure that we solve this problem diplomatically. We've got to give every effort to do so.
But in my discussions with our partners, I reassured them that the security agreements we have with them will be enforced, if need be. And that's in particular to South Korea and Japan.
QUESTION: Senator Warner says Iraq appears to be drifting sideways. And James Baker says a change in strategy may be needed.
Are you willing to acknowledge that a change may be needed?
BUSH: We're constantly changing tactics to achieve a strategic goal. Our strategic goal is a country which can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself.
The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate.
The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives. And they want us to leave. And they want to topple government. They want to extend an ideological caliphate that has no concept of liberty inherent in their beliefs.
They want to control oil resources and they want to plot and plan and attack us again. That's their objectives.
And so -- and our strategic objective is to prevent them from doing that. And we're constantly changing tactics to achieve that objective. And I appreciate Senator Warner going over there and taking a look.
I want you to notice what he did say is: If the plan is now not working, the plan that's in place isn't working, America needs to adjust. I completely agree. That's what I talked to General Casey about.
I said: General, the Baghdad security plan is in its early implementation. I support you strongly but, if you come into this office and say we need to do something differently, I support you. If you need more troops, I support you. If you're going to devise a new strategy, we're with you. Because I trust General Casey to make the judgments necessary to put the tactics in place to help us achieve an objective.
And I appreciate Jimmy Baker's willingness to -- he and Lee Hamilton are putting this -- they got a group they put together that -- I think it was Congressman Wolf's suggestion -- or passed into law.
We supported the idea. I think it's good to have some of our elder statesmen -- I hate to call Baker an elder statesman -- but to go over there and take a look and to come back and make recommendations.
Somebody said he said, "Well, you know, cut-and-run isn't working." That's not our policy.
Our policy is to help this country succeed, because I understand the stakes. And I'm going to repeat them one more time. As a matter of fact, I'm going to spend a lot of time repeating the stakes about what life is like in the Middle East.
It is conceivable that there will be a world in which radical forms -- extreme forms of religion fight each other for influence in the Middle East; in which they've got the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon.
And when you throw into that mix a nuclear weapon in the hands of a sworn enemy of the United States, you begin to see an environment that would cause some later on in history to look back and say, "How come they couldn't see the problem? What happened to them in the year 2006? Why weren't they able to see the problems now and deal with them before it came too late?"
And so Iraq is an important part of dealing with this problem. And my vow to the American people is I understand the stakes, and I understand what it would mean for us to leave before the job is done.
And I look forward to listening to how -- what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton say about how to get the job done.
I appreciate them working on this issue, because I think they understand what I know: The stakes are high.
And the stakes are high when it comes to developing a Palestinian state so that Israel can live at peace.
And the stakes are high when it comes to making sure the young democracy of Lebanon is able to fend off the extremists and radicals that want to crater that democracy.
This is a real challenge of the 21st century. I like to tell people we're in an ideological struggle. And it's a struggle between extremists and radicals and people of moderation who want to simply live a peaceful life.
And the calling of this country and in this century is whether or not we will help the forces of moderation prevail. That's the fundamental question facing the United States of America beyond my presidency.
And you can tell I've made my choice. And I made my choice because the most solemn duty of the American president, in government, is to protect this country from harm.
Martha -- I'm sure with a profound follow-up.
QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea, Mr. President?
BUSH: Please.
QUESTION: You talk about failures of the past administration with the policy toward North Korea.
Again, how can you say your policy is more successful, given that North Korea has apparently tested a nuclear weapon?
And also, if you wouldn't mind, what is the red line for North Korea, given what has happened over the past few months?
BUSH: My point was: Bilateral negotiations didn't work. You know, I appreciate the efforts of previous administrations. It just didn't work.
And, therefore, I thought it was important to change how we approached the problem so that we could solve it diplomatically.
And I firmly believe that with North Korea -- and with Iran -- that it is best to deal with these regimes with more than one voice.
Because I understand how it works. What ends up happening is that, you know, we say to a country such as North Korea, "Here's a reasonable way forward." They try to extract more at the negotiating table or they've got a different objective.
And then they go and say, "Wait a minute; the United States is being unreasonable."
They make a threat. They could -- you know, they say the world is about to fall apart because of the United States's problem. And, all of a sudden, we become the issue.
But the United States' message to North Korea and Iran and the people in both countries is that we have -- we want to solve the issues peacefully.
We said: There's a better way forward for you. Here's a chance, for example, to help your country economically. And all you got to do is verifiably show that you're -- in Iran's cases, that you've suspended your weapons program; in North Korea's case, that you've got international safeguards on your program. Which they agreed to, by the way.
And so my point is that, to the American people, I say: Look, we want to solve this diplomatically. It's important for the president to say to the American people: Diplomacy was what is our first choice. And I've now outlined a strategy.
And I think it is a hopeful sign that China is now an integral partner in helping North Korea understand that it's just not the United States speaking to them.
And it's an important sign to North Korea that South Korea -- a country which obviously is deeply concerned about North Korean activities -- South Korea is a partner.
If North Korea decides that, you know, they don't like what's being said, they're not just stiffing the United States -- I don't know if that's a diplomatic word or not -- but they're sending a message to countries in the neighborhood that they really don't care what other countries think, which leads to further isolation.
And when we get a U.N. Security Council resolution, it will help us deal with issues like proliferation and his ability -- he, being Kim Jong Il's ability to attract money to continue to develop his program.
QUESTION: What about the red line, sir?
BUSH: Well, the world has made it clear that these tests caused us to come together and work in the United Nations to send a clear message to the North Korean regime. We're bound up together with a common strategy to solve this issue peacefully, through diplomatic means.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
BUSH: If I might say, that is a beautiful suit.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. My tailor appreciates that.
BUSH: And I can't see anybody else who even comes close.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I'll be happy to pass along my tailor's number ... if you'd like that, sir.
BUSH: I'll take that back. I will recognize that -- please?
QUESTION: On May 23rd, 2003, sir, you said -- you effectively drew a line in the sand. You said, "We will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea." And, yet, now it appears that they have crossed that line. And I'm wondering what now, sir, do you say to both the American people and the international community vis-a-vis what has happened over the last 48 hours?
BUSH: No, I appreciate that. And I think it's very important for the American people and North Korea to understand that that statement still stands. And one way to make sure that we're able to achieve our objective is to have other people join us in making it clear to North Korea that they share that objective.
And that's what's changed. That's what changed over a relatively quick period of time.
It used to be that the United States would say that, and that would be kind of a stand-alone statement. Now, when that statement is said, there are other nations in the neighborhood saying it.
And so we'll give diplomacy a chance to work. It is very important for us to solve these problems diplomatically. And I thank the leaders of -- listen, when I call them on the phone, we're strategizing.
This isn't, you know: Oh, please stand up and say something. This is: How can we continue to work together to solve this problem? And that is a substantial change from the previous times.
Suzanne, the second -- the first best-dressed person here. Sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Back on Iraq, a group of American and Iraqi health officials today released a report saying that 655,000 Iraqis have died since the Iraq war.
That figure is 20 times the figure that you cited in December at 30,000. Do you care to amend or update your figure? And do you consider this a credible report?
BUSH: No, I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. (Watch Bush reject the study findings as "not credible" -- 1:33 Video)
I do -- I do know that a lot of innocent people have died, and that troubles me. And it grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence.
I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate.
And it's now time for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods so people can feel -- can feel, you know, at peace.
No question it's violent. But this report is one -- they put it out before. It was pretty well -- the methodology is pretty well discredited.
But I, you know, talk to people like General Casey. And, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.
QUESTION: So the figure's 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?
BUSH: I, you know, I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. 600,000 or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible. Thank you.
QUESTION: Since you last held a news conference here in the Rose Garden about a month ago, Republicans across the country have seen races that were once safe tighten, with the tide turning, according to several polls, toward the Democrats.
Understanding that you don't lead by looking at polls...
BUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you kindly.
QUESTION: ... as you've said many times, are you still confident Republicans will hold the House and Senate?
BUSH: Yes. I am.
QUESTION: If so, why? And do you believe that the biggest drag on the Republican Party is the situation in Iraq?
BUSH: I believe that the situation in Iraq is, no question, tough on the American psyche -- like I said, I think, at this very spot, last time I faced the press corps.
And it's serious business. Look, the American people want to know: Can we win? That's what they want to know. And we do we have a plan to win?
There are some who say: Get out; it's not worth it. And those are some of the voices, by the way, in the Democrat Party. Certainly not all Democrats, but some of the loud voices in the party say: Get out.
And so, no question, this is an issue. But so is the economy. And I believe there will be -- I still stand by my prediction we'll have a Republican speaker and Republican leader of the Senate.
And the reason I say that is because I believe the two biggest issues in this campaign are, one, the economy -- and the economy is growing. The national unemployment rate is 4.6 percent.'
We've just discovered, as the result of analyzing new data, that we added 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003.
Gas prices are down. Tax cuts are working. And there's a difference of opinion in the campaign about taxes.
And we will keep them low. As a matter of fact, I would like to keep -- make the tax cuts we passed permanent. And the Democrats will raise taxes.
Now, I know they say, "Only on rich people," but that's, in my judgment, having been around here long enough to know, it's just codeword. They're going to raise them on whoever they can raise them on.
And then, on security: The American people know that our biggest job is to protect this country from further attack. And -- because they know there's an enemy that still plots and plans, and there is. There is.
Recently we learned that when British intelligence and U.S. intelligence, with our help, broke up a plot to get on airplanes and blow them up; the planes that were going to fly from Great Britain to here.
And they want to know -- they, the people, want to know: What are we doing to protect them?
There had been some votes on the floor of the Senate and the House that make it abundantly clear we just have a different view of the world.
The vast majority of Democrats voted against a program that will enable us to interrogate high-valued detainees. That was the vote. It was wide open for everybody to see: Should a CIA program go forward or not go forward?
A vast majority of Democrats in the House voted against a program that would have institutionalized the capacity for this government to listen to al Qaeda phone calls or al Qaeda affiliate phone calls coming from outside the country to inside the country.
It's very important for our fellow citizens to recognize that I don't question anybody's patriotism. But I do question a strategy that says we can't give those on the front line of fighting terror the tools necessary to fight terror.
I believe that in order to defend America we must take a threat seriously and defeat an enemy overseas so we don't have to face them here. I don't believe we can wait to respond after attack has occurred.
And so I think these are the two biggest issues. And Iraq is a part of the war on terror.
Now, I recognize Democrats say that's not the case. And what I say to the American people when I'm out there is all you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says. Don't believe me that it's a part of the war on terror. Listen to the enemy, or listen to Mr. Zawahiri, the number two of al Qaeda; both of whom made it clear that Iraq is central in their plans.
And I firmly believe that the American people understand that this is different from other war because in this war if we were to leave early, before the job is done, then the enemy will follow us here.
And so I believe that we'll maintain control because we're on the right side of the economic issue and the security issue.
Let's see. Yes, sir. Welcome to the front row.
QUESTION: Thank you. It's good to be here. Appreciate it.
Following up on that answer, one of the things Democrats complain about is the way you portray their position...
BUSH: Oh, really?
QUESTION: ... in wanting to fight the war on terror. They would say you portray is as either they support exactly what you want to do or they want to do nothing. We hear it in some of your speeches.
Is it fair to portray it to the American people that way?
BUSH: Well, I think it's fair to use the words of people in Congress or their votes. The vote was, on the Hamdan legislation: Do you want to continue a program that enabled us to interrogate folks or not?
And all I was doing was reciting the votes.
I would cite my opponent in the 2004 campaign, when he said there needs to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq. I characterize that as cut and run, because I believe it is cut and run. In other words, I've been using either their votes or their words to characterize their positions.
QUESTION: But they don't say, "Cut and run."
BUSH: Well, they may not use, "Cut and run," but they say, "Date certain," as to when to get out before the job is done; that is cut and run. You know, nobody's accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary; I understand that.
And maybe their words are more sophisticated than mine. But when you pull out before the job is done, that's cut and run, as far as I'm concerned. And that's cut and run as far as most Americans are concerned.
And so, yes, I'm going to continue reminding them of their words and their votes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. My best suit's in the cleaners.
BUSH: That's not even a suit.
QUESTION: I know. You got to give me more time in the morning with the news conference.
BUSH: Yes, I know. You like to wake up about 8:30...
QUESTION: I want to ask you...
BUSH: High-price news guys...
QUESTION: Yes ... I want to ask you a little bit about -- I want to follow on the criticism that you have received, or the suggestions from Senator Warner and from James Baker...
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: ... and now Olympia Snowe. This is not exactly the board of directors for moveon.org.
BUSH: That's true.
QUESTION: Do you feel in some way that there is some shift going on in terms of the general support for the war in Iraq and your strategy, specifically? And do you ever feel like the walls are closing in on you, in terms of support for this?
BUSH: I understand how hard it is. And I also understand the stakes. And let me go back to Senator Warner. Senator Warner said: If the plan isn't working, adjust. I agree completely.
You know, I haven't seen Baker's report yet. But one of the things I'd remind you of is that I don't hear those people saying: Get out before the job is done.
They're saying: Be flexible. And we are.
I believe that, you know, you empower your generals to make the decisions -- the recommendations on what we do to win.
You can't fight a war from Washington. In other words, you can't make the tactical decisions necessary to win. It just won't work.
And I trust General Casey. I find him to be one of the really competent, decent guys.
Let me finish, please, for a second. Plus, I couldn't hear you, but I saw you talking, anyway.
I value his judgment. I value his -- I know he wants to succeed. And I value his objectivity. And he -- what's important for the president is when I open up that door in there and General Casey walks in, he feels confident to tell me what's on his mind. "Here's what's going right and here's what's going wrong and here's what we're doing about it."
And so for those folks saying make sure there's flexibility, I couldn't agree more with you. And I think the characterization of, you know, "Stay the course," is about a quarter right.
Stay the course means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working; change.
Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done. We're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq.
Defeat in Iraq will embolden an enemy. And I want to repeat to you the reality of the world in which we live. If we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy's coming after us. And most Americans -- back to your question -- understand we've got to defeat them there so we don't face them here. It's a different kind of war but, nevertheless, it is a war. And -- go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering: Two months ago, Prime Minister Maliki was here and you talked about how we had to be nimble and facile in our approach. And my question is...
BUSH: Yes.
QUESTION: ... are we being nimble and facile in the right way? Is what General Casey telling you the most effective advice? Because it would seem that, in the two months since Prime Minister Maliki was here, things have only gotten more bloody in Iraq?
BUSH: No question, Ramadan's here. No question, we're engaging the enemy more than we were before. And by the way, when you engage the enemy, it causes there to be more action and more kinetic action.
And the fundamental question is: Do I get good advice from Casey? And the answer is: I believe I do. I believe I do.
Yes?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke very passionately before about acting before it was too late on major issues. You faced one of those moments in early 2003. This was when the North Koreans had thrown out the international inspectors, said they were going to go ahead and turn their fuel into weapons.
And you had a moment to tell them that they would face serious consequences if they were going to do that. You also had what may have been the last moment for any American president to destroy their fuel supplies while they were all in one place.
BUSH: You mean bombing them?
QUESTION: Whatever action you might have needed to take, including military action against the site, the one site at the time, where they were getting ready...
BUSH: I just wanted to clarify. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
QUESTION: Yes. And you chose not to. And I was wondering whether in retrospect you regret that decision at all, whether or not you think that because of the long history of deception that you pointed out before you should have acted differently.
BUSH: I used the moment to continue my desire to convince others to become equity partners in the Korean issue -- North Korean issue -- because I obviously look at all options, all the time. And I felt like the best way to solve this problem would be through a diplomacy effort that was renewed and reinvigorated by having China and South Korea and Japan and Russia joining us in convincing Kim Jong Il there's a better way forward.
And, frankly, I was quite optimistic that we had succeeded last September when we had this joint statement, which you adequately covered.
And, yet, he walked away from it. He decided: Well, maybe his word doesn't mean anything.
And so we will continue to work diplomatically to solve the problem. That's what I owe the American people, to come up with a diplomatic solution.
I also made it clear, and I will repeat, that we have security obligations in the region that I reconfirmed to our partners.
Sir? Washington Post man?
QUESTION: Good morning, Mr. President. I'd like to follow up on an earlier question about your rhetoric on Iran and North Korea.
You said yesterday, in your statement, that the North Korean nuclear test was unacceptable.
Your chief negotiator for the six-party talks said last week that North Korea has a choice, of either having weapons or having a future.
When you spoke, a month or so ago, to the American Legion, you talked about Iran and said: There must be consequences for Iran's defiance and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
I'm wondering, sir -- your administration has issued these kinds of warning pretty regularly over the last five years. And yet these countries have pursued their nuclear programs.
I'm wondering: What is different about the current set of warnings? And do you think the administration -- our government runs the risk of looking feckless to world by issuing these kinds of warnings regularly without response from the countries?
BUSH: That's a fair question. First of all, I am making it clear our policy hadn't changed.
It's important for the folks to understand that we don't continually shift our goals based upon, you know, polls or whatever.
See, I think clarity of purpose is very important to rally a diplomatic effort to solve the problem. And so I try to speak as clearly as I can and make sure there's no ambiguity in our position.
I also found that's a pretty good way to help rally a diplomatic effort that I believe will more likely work.
I know this sounds just saying it over and over again, but it's -- rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe that that is the best strategy to solve the problem.
I mean, one has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards. It is much easier for a nation to hear what I believe are legitimate demands if there's more than one voice speaking. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.
And to answer your question as to whether or not the words will be empty, I would suggest that, quite the contrary, that we not only have spoken about the goals, but as a result of working together, our friends, Iran and North Korea are looking at a different diplomatic scenario.
I thought you were going to ask the question, following up on Sanger: How come you don't use military action now?
You kind of hinted it. You didn't say it.
Now, and some wonder that. As a matter of fact, I'm asked questions around the country: Just go ahead and use the military. And my answer is is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures before we commit our military. And I believe the diplomacy is, you know, we're making progress when we've got others at the table, you know?
I will ask myself a follow-up: If that's the case, why did you use military action in Iraq?
And the reason why is because we tried the diplomacy. Remember it? We tried resolution after resolution after resolution. All these, these -- these situations are, each of them, different and require a different response, a different effort to try to resolve this peacefully.
And we'll continue to do so.
The inability to convince people to move forward speaks volumes about them. It ought to say to all the world that we're dealing with people that maybe don't want peace -- which, in my judgment, in order for there to be peace requires an international response.
It says volumes about a person who signs an agreement with one administration and signs an agreement or speaks about an agreement with another administration and it doesn't honor the agreement.
It points up the fact that these are dangerous regimes and requires an international effort to work in concert.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'd like to turn back to North Korea for a bit. You've said that bilateral talks didn't work. Secretary Baker has said that maybe they should be considered maybe at some point and under certain conditions.
Are you prepared now to just take the possibility of one-on-one talks with North Korea off the table?
BUSH: I'm saying as loud as I can and as clear as I can that there is a better way forward for North Korea and that we will work within the context of the six-party talks.
People say: You don't talk to North Korea. Look, we had a representative -- a United States representative -- at the table in the six-party talks.
The North Korean leader knows our position. It's easy to understand our position. There is a better way forward for his government.
And people need to review the September '05 document. It's a joint statement that talked about economics and that, you know, we won't attack North Korea. We agreed that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons on the peninsula.
I mean, there is a way forward for the leader of North Korea to choose.
We've made our choice. And so has China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. And that's what's changed.
I also am deeply concerned about the lives of the citizens in that country. I mean, there's -- and that's why I named an envoy, Jay Lefkowitz, to talk about the human condition inside of North Korea. And the reason we do that is we care about how people live, we care about people starving, we care about the fact that there are large concentration camps.
You know, one of the most meaningful moments of my presidency came when a Japanese mother came to the Oval Office to talk about what it was like to have her daughter kidnapped by North Korea.
You can imagine what that was like. It broke my heart. And it should break everybody's heart. But it speaks to the nature of the regime.
And therefore we -- I am convinced that, to solve this diplomatically requires more than just America's voice.
QUESTION: Mr. President, with growing numbers of House members and staffers saying that they knew of and told others about a problem with Mark Foley some years ago, has House Speaker Hastert lost touch within his own ranks? And has the scandal damaged Hastert's credibility and effectiveness in maintaining party control in the midterm elections?
BUSH: No, I think the speaker's strong statements have made it clear to not only the party members, but to the country, that he wants to find out the facts.
All of us want to find out the facts. I mean, this is disgusting behavior when a member of Congress betrays the trust of the Congress and a family that sent a young page up to serve in the Congress.
I appreciated Speaker Hastert's strong declaration of his desire to get to the bottom of it. You know, we want to make sure what we understand what Republicans knew and what Democrats knew in order to find the facts. And I hope that happens sooner rather than later.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
BUSH: Oh, Denny's very credible as far as I'm concerned. And he's done a fine job as speaker, when he stands up and says: I want to know the truth. And I believe yesterday he said that if somebody on his staff, you know, didn't tell him the truth, they're gone. I respect that and appreciate that and believe him.
I think the elections will be decided by security and the economy. I really do. I know this is -- this Foley issue bothers a lot of people, including me.
But I think when they get in that booth, they're going to be thinking about, you know, how best to secure the country from attack and, you know, how best to keep the economy growing.
I think the last time I was out here with you, I reminded you that I understand that the economy is always a salient issue in campaigns. We've had some experience with that in my family, I think I said.
I still think -- believe the economy's an important issue. And I believe, on this issue, there is a huge difference of opinion.
The other day -- by the way, I did bring up the words of the leader of the House when she said, "I love tax cuts."
And then I reminded everybody that if you loved them so much, how come she voted against a lot of tax cuts?
In other words, again, back to your question about whether it's fair to use people's words, I think to say, "I love tax cuts," and then vote against tax cuts is just -- it's worthy -- it's worthy of people's consideration in the political process.
I believe taxes are a big issue in the campaign. And I know how -- I know that how best to protect the country is a big issue, a really big issue. And, you know, there's just a kind of law enforcement mentality that says: Well, we'll respond after attack.
It's not going to work. It's just not going to work. We've got to deal with these problems before they come to -- before they come to our territory.
I understand that some are saying, "Well, he's just trying to scare us."
My job is to look at the intelligence and to -- and I'm going to tell you that there's an enemy out there that would like to do harm again to the United States, because we're in a war. And they have objectives. They want to -- they want to drive us out of parts of the world to establish a caliphate. It's what they have told us.
And it's essential that we listen to the words of the enemy if we want to protect the American people.
And in this debate about which party can handle it better, I will -- I think it's very important that no one question the patriotism or, you know, the loyalty to the country. There is a different mindset, however, that is worth discussing in the course of a campaign, and I'm going to continue to do it. And I believe those two issues will be the issue that drive the election.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, some in the national security community are wondering if, indeed, you are ready to live with a nuclear North Korea.
BUSH: No.
QUESTION: Well, they're saying that that is a possibility.
BUSH: Well, they're wrong.
QUESTION: Well, can I give you...
BUSH: Well, it's a short question -- a short answer. I mean...
QUESTION: One, China is not ready to put teeth behind sanctions, enough teeth to really threaten the regime. And, also, economic sanctions have limited effect on North Korea.
BUSH: We have tried, diplomatically, first.
And this is back to old Michael's question about: Am I serious about saying what I mean? That's why I say what I say, because some people are beginning to wonder whether or not that's the goal. The goal is no nuclear weapon.
Again, I think I've shared with you my views of diplomacy. Diplomacy is a difficult process because everybody's interests aren't exactly the same. We share the same goal, but sometimes the internal issues are different from ours.
And, therefore, it takes a while to get people on the same page. And it takes a while for people to get used to consequences.
And so I wouldn't necessarily characterize these countries' positions as, you know, locked-in positions.
We're constantly dialoguing with them to make sure that there is a common effort to send a clear message.
And the other part of your question was?
QUESTION: And the follow-up, yes. Military options -- there are a menu of options. The White House is saying once diplomacy has run its course and you've run through your timetable, what about military options against North Korea?
BUSH: Well, diplomacy hasn't run its course, that's what I'm trying to explain to you -- a la the Sanger question. And we'll continue working to make sure we give diplomacy a full opportunity to succeed.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke of the troubles in Iraq. And as you know, we have Woodward and we have a shelf full of books about Iraq, and many of them claim that administration policies contributed to the difficulties there.
So I'm wondering: Is there anything you wish you would have done different with regard to Iraq?
BUSH: You know, speaking about books, somebody ought to add up the number of pages that have been written about my administration. There's a lot of books out there -- a lot.
I don't know if I set the record or not, but I guess it means that I made some hard decisions and will continue to make hard decisions.
And this is the -- this is about the fifth time I've been asked this type of question and, as you know, there are some things that I wish had happened differently.
Abu Ghraib: I believe that really hurt us. It hurt us internationally. It kind of eased us off the moral high ground; we weren't a country that was capable of, one the one hand, promoting democracy and then treating people decently. Now the world is seeing that we've held those to account who did this.
It's just a lot of look-backs. Presidents don't get to look back but, I will tell you, the decision to remove Saddam was the right decision. And I would look forward to the debate where people debate whether or not Saddam should still be in power.
As you know, the leader in the Senate Intel Committee on -- I think it was CBS News, Axelrod; I'm not sure; you follow your news closely; you can verify this -- said that the world would be better if Saddam were in power. I strongly disagree. When it comes to that decision, which is the decision that caused a lot of people to write books, it's the right decision.
And now the fundamental question is: Will this country help this young democracy succeed? And the answer is: We will. We'll change tactics when we need to change tactics to help this young democracy succeed.
But the stakes are high if we were to leave. It means that we would hand over a part of the region to extremists and radicals who would glorify a victory over the United States and use it to become -- use it to recruit. It would give these people a chance to plot and plan and attack. It would give them resources from which to continue their efforts to spread their caliphate.
The stakes are really high.
QUESTION: On a different topic, you have said you will sign the border fence bill to build 700 miles of fence along the U.S. border, but DHS has said it prefers a virtual fence of sensors and cameras, rather than an actual wall.
Will you -- are you committed to building the 700 miles of fence -- actual fencing?
BUSH: Yeah, we're going to do both. We're just going to make sure that we build it in a spot where it works.
I don't -- I don't -- DHS said they want a virtual wall. I don't believe that's the only thing they said. I think you might have truncated their statement, because we're actually building fence, and we're building double fence in particular areas where there is a high vulnerability for people being able to sneak in.
You can't fence the entire border, but what you can do is you can use a combination of fencing and technology to make it easier for the Border Patrol to enforce our border.
I happen to believe, however, that in order to make sure the border is fully secure, we need a guest worker program so people aren't sneaking in in the first place.
And so I look forward to not only implementing that which Congress has funded in a way that says to folks, to the American people: We'll enforce our border.
But I'm going to continue to campaign and work for a comprehensive bill so that whatever we do in terms of equipment and manpower works better.
If somebody's not trying to sneak in to work -- in other words, coming through in a way where they're showing a temporary worker, you know, pass, where they're not using coyotes to smuggle across, where they're not, you know, going through tunnels -- it's going to make it much easier for us to do our job. And that's enforce the border.
So I'm comfortable -- my judgment is people want this country secure. And we've got to do -- have a smart border, which we're in the process of developing now. It's a combination of fencing and technologies, UAVs, sensors.
I don't know if you've ever been down there. But it's a pretty vast part of the country down there. It's hard to enforce that border. You got some rugged country. You've got stretches of territory where you don't even know where the border is.
And you've got urban areas like El Paso or, you know, Southern California where people have been able to sneak in and -- by use of urban corridors.
And so, therefore, fencing makes sense there.
I went down to Arizona, the Arizona sector, and saw a place where there's literally neighbors abutting the border, and people would come -- you know, a hundred of them would rush across the border into a little subdivision and the Border Patrol would catch two or three and 97 would get in.
And they're asking: What are you going to provide to help us do our job?
And in this case, those who are in charge of coming up with the proper strategy to enforce the borders say we need double fencing with space so that the Border Patrol can use that fencing as leverage against people rushing into the country.
And my only point to you is that the strategy to develop this border requires different assets based upon the conditions, based upon what the terrain looks like. And that's what we're doing.
But I repeat to you: When you've got a situation where people are sneaking in to do jobs Americans aren't doing, it's also going to keep a strain on the border.
And so therefore, a temporary worker plan, to me, makes sense. and it's a much more humane program -- approach, by the way. It will certainly help stamp out all these illegal characters that are exploiting human beings; you know, these coyotes that stuff people in the back of 18-wheelers for money.
That's not in character with how this nation works. And I think we ought to -- I think a good program that helps us enforce our border also will see to it that people are treated more humanely.
Thank you for your interest.
Filed under
Abu Ghraib,
Ayman al Zawahri,
Bush,
Congress,
Iran,
Iraq,
Israel,
Rumsfeld,
Russia
by Winter Patriot
on Wednesday, October 11, 2006
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
