November 21, 2005. 2209 gmt.
West Pacific satellite.
New Zealand is in the southeast corner out of the frame.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Morning Papers - concluded
The weather in Antarctica (Crystal Ice Chime) is:
Scott Base
Cloudy
-13.0°
Updated Tuesday 22 Nov 8:59AM
The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is:
46 °F / 8 °C
Overcast
FLOOD STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JUNEAU AK
600 AM AST MON NOV 21 2005
...THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED A SMALL STREAM FLOODADVISORY FOR THE CENTRAL PANHANDLE NORTH OF FREDERICK SOUND ANDTHE CENTRAL COASTAL AREA UNTIL 11 PM AST TONIGHT...
...SMALL STREAM FLOOD ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THENORTHEAST GULF COAST AND NORTHWEST PANHANDLE UNTIL 11 PM ASTTONIGHT...
HEAVY RAIN WILL FALL OVER THE NORTHWEST AND CENTRAL PARTS OFSOUTHEAST ALASKA TODAY AND THE EARLY PART OF TONIGHT. RAINFALL OF2 TO 5 INCHES IS LIKELY IN THESE AREAS THROUGH THIS EVENING.WATER LEVELS IN SMALL STREAMS AND DRAINAGE DITCHES WILL RAPIDLYRISE AND MAY REACH OR EXCEED THEIR BANKS DURING THIS TIME.RAIN WILL CAUSE CONSIDERABLE PONDING OF WATER IN LOW LYING AREAS,NEAR CULVERTS, AND ALONG SMALL CREEKS AND DRAINAGES.THE NEXT STATEMENT ON THIS EVENT IS SCHEDULED AT NOON AST MON.ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS COULD BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME IF CONDITIONSCHANGE.
EASTERN CHICHAGOF ISLAND-
INCLUDING...HOONAH
7 AM AST MON NOV 21 2005.NOW...
...SMALL STREAM FLOOD ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM ASTTONIGHT...
...WIND ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM AST TONIGHT...RAIN...HEAVY AT TIMES WITH WINDY CONDITIONS THROUGH THE MORNING.SOUTH WINDS 20 TO 30 MPH GUSTING TO 40 MPH...HIGHER GUSTS INEXPOSED AREAS.
Windchill:
39 °F / 4 °C
Humidity:
76%
Dew Point:
39 °F / 4 °C
Wind:
20 mph / 32 km/h from the SE
Pressure:
29.83 in / 1010 hPa
Visibility:
10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV:
0 out of 16
Clouds:
Overcast 4200 ft / 1280 m
(Above Ground Level)
end
Scott Base
Cloudy
-13.0°
Updated Tuesday 22 Nov 8:59AM
The weather at Glacier Bay National Park (Crystal Wind Chime) is:
46 °F / 8 °C
Overcast
FLOOD STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JUNEAU AK
600 AM AST MON NOV 21 2005
...THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS ISSUED A SMALL STREAM FLOODADVISORY FOR THE CENTRAL PANHANDLE NORTH OF FREDERICK SOUND ANDTHE CENTRAL COASTAL AREA UNTIL 11 PM AST TONIGHT...
...SMALL STREAM FLOOD ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THENORTHEAST GULF COAST AND NORTHWEST PANHANDLE UNTIL 11 PM ASTTONIGHT...
HEAVY RAIN WILL FALL OVER THE NORTHWEST AND CENTRAL PARTS OFSOUTHEAST ALASKA TODAY AND THE EARLY PART OF TONIGHT. RAINFALL OF2 TO 5 INCHES IS LIKELY IN THESE AREAS THROUGH THIS EVENING.WATER LEVELS IN SMALL STREAMS AND DRAINAGE DITCHES WILL RAPIDLYRISE AND MAY REACH OR EXCEED THEIR BANKS DURING THIS TIME.RAIN WILL CAUSE CONSIDERABLE PONDING OF WATER IN LOW LYING AREAS,NEAR CULVERTS, AND ALONG SMALL CREEKS AND DRAINAGES.THE NEXT STATEMENT ON THIS EVENT IS SCHEDULED AT NOON AST MON.ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS COULD BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME IF CONDITIONSCHANGE.
EASTERN CHICHAGOF ISLAND-
INCLUDING...HOONAH
7 AM AST MON NOV 21 2005.NOW...
...SMALL STREAM FLOOD ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM ASTTONIGHT...
...WIND ADVISORY IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM AST TONIGHT...RAIN...HEAVY AT TIMES WITH WINDY CONDITIONS THROUGH THE MORNING.SOUTH WINDS 20 TO 30 MPH GUSTING TO 40 MPH...HIGHER GUSTS INEXPOSED AREAS.
Windchill:
39 °F / 4 °C
Humidity:
76%
Dew Point:
39 °F / 4 °C
Wind:
20 mph / 32 km/h from the SE
Pressure:
29.83 in / 1010 hPa
Visibility:
10.0 miles / 16.1 kilometers
UV:
0 out of 16
Clouds:
Overcast 4200 ft / 1280 m
(Above Ground Level)
end
November 18, 2005. East branch of the Escanaba River, Marquette, Michigan.
The water is too warm to freeze.
Consequently, the snow on the rocks melts where the warmer water laps up against the rocks changing the temperature of the side of the rock opposed to the drier top.
There is no ice anywhere. The air is warmer than freezing.
A Glacial Storm.
November 18, 2005. Marquette, Michigan.
The photographer waited until clouds moved off so the snow covered trees could be seen better.
Here again there is no ice. The snow is dense and pristine white. The flowing river shows no ice flows, chucks of frozen ice in this fresh water river. When one looks for the supporting temperature to a snow storm this dense it looks grossly out of place as if this sound be autumn leaf colors and not white.
This snow storm sustained because of the frigid air mass that carried it to lower latitudes alone. The snow was completely percipitation without a prepared surface to receive it. To me this is an extremely odd picture.
There is ice anywhere, with a very dense and pristine snow everywhere except the warmer and flowing river.
A Glacial Storm.
November 18, 2005. West of Marquette, Micigan. It is called the Dead River Area. The name raises lots of anthropological questions.
The photographer stated the temperatures were warm, followed to subzero, returning to warmer temperatures when this snow storm occurred.
My opinion is this is a misplaced storm. It very much looks like a glacial storm. When have you last seen a snow this pristine and pure white? White enough to reflect light back to space?
This is a temperate snow storm intended in days gone by as recharge to northern glaciers. It is dense and pure white. Eventually, before Global Warming vortices cranked up October 2002, this type of snow would eventually become glacial ice. If the temperature returns to freezing this 'temperate' snow might be around for awhile. It is beautiful.
A Glacial Storm.
West of Marquette. Michigan. Where the river water moves slower and pools at a bend there is accumulation of some ice.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
The Country was Mislead by this Administration into an Unnecessary War with Iraq
On October 7, 2002
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
That evening ...
Bush Declares Saddam a Tyrant in Speech to American Public; Senate Argues Along Party Lines Over Iraq Resolution
Aired October 7, 2002 - 22:00 ET
AARON BROWN, ANCHOR: Good evening, again.
There's so much to do in this hour, the less said on this page the better. The president, as you know, laid out his case against Iraq to our ears. He was like a prosecutor closing a murder case. His tone: low key. His words: stern.
Saddam, a murderous tyrant, a homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It was not that the president plowed new ground tonight. Most of what he said he, or others in the administration have been saying for weeks.
It's that he laid it all out together. Not a sound byte here or a photo-op there. A 30-minute argument about why Iraq must disarm and why the world must force him to do so now.
In the first minute of the speech, the president mentioned the September 11 attacks on this country. He chose to make the speech on the one-year anniversary of the first attack on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And he argued that confronting Iraq is the logical and necessary continuation of the war on terror.
The president had a number of audiences tonight: the U.N. Security Council, whose support he clearly wants, the Congress, whose support he clearly will get, and the American people, who continue to support the president on Iraq, but by a narrowing majority. All of these audiences matter tonight, and we'll get reaction from all of them as we go along.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, in that 30-minute address tonight the president trying to answer his many critics and answer the many questions of the American people posed a question of his own. He said if the world knows Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush said he does, why wait to confront him and let him gather even more?
BROWN: John, we'll be back with you in just a moment.
Also coming up on the program, "The New York Times" columnist Nicholas Kristof, who is just back from Baghdad. He'll be along a little bit later. We'll bring your voice into the mix as well.
Candy Crowley tonight gauges public reaction. She's been out in Chicago. Ambivalence seems to be the dominant feeling.
Kelli Arena tonight on the dramatic shift by the Justice Department in the war on terror, prosecuting people before they attack.
Jeff Greenfield is with us too.
We've got a long way to go in the hour ahead. We begin with the speech. It was personal and it was policy. The president said he hoped the Iraqi regime would comply with the demands of the international community. But there was no doubt that what he wants is the removal of Saddam Hussein.
He invoked the words of President John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis and the echoes of FDR, when he said "Americans will not live in fear." He acknowledged that many people have legitimate questions, but he laid out his answers without a hint of gray, all black and white.
It was not the beginning of a campaign, so much as it was the continuation of one that started on the 12th of September at the United Nations. We begin our coverage with Senior White House Correspondent John King.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): A prime-time address and a clear bottom line.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... terror cells. And outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
KING: One year to the day after the first U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush called Iraq a logical and urgent next front in the war on terrorism. The administration released two newly declassified satellite photographs to back the president's assertion that Iraq is rebuilding nuclear weapons facilities. And Mr. Bush said Iraq's chemical and biological weapons pose a grave danger as well.
BUSH: Understanding the threats of our time. Knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime. We have every reason to assume the worst. And we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
KING: The speech came at a critical juncture in the Iraq debate.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
KING: Congress votes this week on a resolution authorizing the president to use military force. And the United Nations Security Council is divided over the White House demand for a tough new ultimatum to Iraq. Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in the new CNN-"USA Today" Gallup Poll opposed military action in such a scenario.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures.
KING: Mr. Bush warned Iraq's generals to ignore any orders to launch chemical or biological weapons. The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: An effort by the president to answer not only his many critics and skeptics but also what Mr. Bush called the legitimate questions being raised by average Americans.
And, Aaron, a clear effort by this president to make clear that he means it when he calls Iraq a unique threat and that he means to deal with that threat with or without the blessing of the United Nations.
BROWN: But he would like the blessing of the United Nations. So how is that going?
KING: Well, the speech was part of the effort. Privately, administration officials say that diplomacy is working, that there is now a consensus at least for a new resolution. The debate now, how explicit that resolution should be in putting the threat of military force on the table. The president, in addition to practicing this big speech during the day today, spoke to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
He wished him a happy birthday. He asked for his help in the Security Council. U.S. officials a little frustrated. They say this is going to take two, maybe three more weeks, but they think they're making headway.
BROWN: What they want here, just to be clear, or at least for me, is that they don't want -- they want one resolution that covers everything. That is to say, here are the rules, and if you don't you, the Iraqis, don't abide by the rules, hear are the consequences. And the French and the Russians argue otherwise, right?
KING: The French and the Russians argue, at least at this point, at least publicly, if there is a problem, if there is interference with a new weapons inspection regime, let's have another meeting at the United Nations to discuss the consequences. Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
You used the terms "black and white." The president wants this to be any time, any place, anywhere, or else no more meetings, no more debate.
BROWN: John, thank you. Senior White House Correspondent John King tonight.
As we said, the president was speaking to a number of audiences tonight. Lawmakers in Washington are well on their way to voting on a resolution supporting the president. Right now it seems a question of how big the margin of victory will be. We turn to Jonathan Karl for that side of the story. Jon, good evening.
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?
Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.
That evening ...
Bush Declares Saddam a Tyrant in Speech to American Public; Senate Argues Along Party Lines Over Iraq Resolution
Aired October 7, 2002 - 22:00 ET
AARON BROWN, ANCHOR: Good evening, again.
There's so much to do in this hour, the less said on this page the better. The president, as you know, laid out his case against Iraq to our ears. He was like a prosecutor closing a murder case. His tone: low key. His words: stern.
Saddam, a murderous tyrant, a homicidal dictator addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It was not that the president plowed new ground tonight. Most of what he said he, or others in the administration have been saying for weeks.
It's that he laid it all out together. Not a sound byte here or a photo-op there. A 30-minute argument about why Iraq must disarm and why the world must force him to do so now.
In the first minute of the speech, the president mentioned the September 11 attacks on this country. He chose to make the speech on the one-year anniversary of the first attack on the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And he argued that confronting Iraq is the logical and necessary continuation of the war on terror.
The president had a number of audiences tonight: the U.N. Security Council, whose support he clearly wants, the Congress, whose support he clearly will get, and the American people, who continue to support the president on Iraq, but by a narrowing majority. All of these audiences matter tonight, and we'll get reaction from all of them as we go along.
JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, in that 30-minute address tonight the president trying to answer his many critics and answer the many questions of the American people posed a question of his own. He said if the world knows Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush said he does, why wait to confront him and let him gather even more?
BROWN: John, we'll be back with you in just a moment.
Also coming up on the program, "The New York Times" columnist Nicholas Kristof, who is just back from Baghdad. He'll be along a little bit later. We'll bring your voice into the mix as well.
Candy Crowley tonight gauges public reaction. She's been out in Chicago. Ambivalence seems to be the dominant feeling.
Kelli Arena tonight on the dramatic shift by the Justice Department in the war on terror, prosecuting people before they attack.
Jeff Greenfield is with us too.
We've got a long way to go in the hour ahead. We begin with the speech. It was personal and it was policy. The president said he hoped the Iraqi regime would comply with the demands of the international community. But there was no doubt that what he wants is the removal of Saddam Hussein.
He invoked the words of President John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis and the echoes of FDR, when he said "Americans will not live in fear." He acknowledged that many people have legitimate questions, but he laid out his answers without a hint of gray, all black and white.
It was not the beginning of a campaign, so much as it was the continuation of one that started on the 12th of September at the United Nations. We begin our coverage with Senior White House Correspondent John King.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.
And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KING (voice-over): A prime-time address and a clear bottom line.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... terror cells. And outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.
KING: One year to the day after the first U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush called Iraq a logical and urgent next front in the war on terrorism. The administration released two newly declassified satellite photographs to back the president's assertion that Iraq is rebuilding nuclear weapons facilities. And Mr. Bush said Iraq's chemical and biological weapons pose a grave danger as well.
BUSH: Understanding the threats of our time. Knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime. We have every reason to assume the worst. And we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
KING: The speech came at a critical juncture in the Iraq debate.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Why now?
KING: Congress votes this week on a resolution authorizing the president to use military force. And the United Nations Security Council is divided over the White House demand for a tough new ultimatum to Iraq. Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties.
Public opinion also is evolving. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor invading to remove Saddam from power, 40 percent oppose an invasion.
But support drops to just 33 percent if an invasion would result in 5,000 or more U.S. casualties. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in the new CNN-"USA Today" Gallup Poll opposed military action in such a scenario.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may.
BUSH: I hope this will not require military action. But it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures.
KING: Mr. Bush warned Iraq's generals to ignore any orders to launch chemical or biological weapons. The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
The 29-minute speech contained no major new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs or its alleged ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: An effort by the president to answer not only his many critics and skeptics but also what Mr. Bush called the legitimate questions being raised by average Americans.
And, Aaron, a clear effort by this president to make clear that he means it when he calls Iraq a unique threat and that he means to deal with that threat with or without the blessing of the United Nations.
BROWN: But he would like the blessing of the United Nations. So how is that going?
KING: Well, the speech was part of the effort. Privately, administration officials say that diplomacy is working, that there is now a consensus at least for a new resolution. The debate now, how explicit that resolution should be in putting the threat of military force on the table. The president, in addition to practicing this big speech during the day today, spoke to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
He wished him a happy birthday. He asked for his help in the Security Council. U.S. officials a little frustrated. They say this is going to take two, maybe three more weeks, but they think they're making headway.
BROWN: What they want here, just to be clear, or at least for me, is that they don't want -- they want one resolution that covers everything. That is to say, here are the rules, and if you don't you, the Iraqis, don't abide by the rules, hear are the consequences. And the French and the Russians argue otherwise, right?
KING: The French and the Russians argue, at least at this point, at least publicly, if there is a problem, if there is interference with a new weapons inspection regime, let's have another meeting at the United Nations to discuss the consequences. Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
Have a meeting to discuss whether it's an egregious violation by Iraq. The president does not want to get into any of that.
You used the terms "black and white." The president wants this to be any time, any place, anywhere, or else no more meetings, no more debate.
BROWN: John, thank you. Senior White House Correspondent John King tonight.
As we said, the president was speaking to a number of audiences tonight. Lawmakers in Washington are well on their way to voting on a resolution supporting the president. Right now it seems a question of how big the margin of victory will be. We turn to Jonathan Karl for that side of the story. Jon, good evening.
Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
KARL: Good evening, Aaron. Well, the president's speech drew predictable praise from Republicans, who are almost to a person up here on Capitol Hill lining up in support of the president's policy on Iraq. It also drew some praise from the growing ranks of democrats who are supportive of the White House Iraq policy.
But then there are the democratic critics, and they are a relatively small but a very powerful lot. And the democratic critic up here who has emerged as the staunchest critic of the president's Iraq policy is Robert Byrd. He spoke right after the president's speech on "LARRY KING LIVE" and said he was not impressed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
But what he does in doing that is he obscures the fact that the United States Senate is being asked to vote on a resolution which puts the stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks and preventive war. I think that's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Among the most interesting words I read today came from someone else who might like the nomination in 2004, Senator Edwards, who is supportive of the president but.
KARL: Yes, this was interesting. Senator Edwards of North Carolina, clearly somebody thinking about running for president, has been one of those people that have come out and said that he will clearly support the president on this resolution. But in a speech today that was billed as a major policy speech, Edwards seemed to be almost in a debate with himself, because while he was supporting the president on this resolution he was also criticizing the president for going it alone. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.
KARL: Good evening, Aaron. Well, the president's speech drew predictable praise from Republicans, who are almost to a person up here on Capitol Hill lining up in support of the president's policy on Iraq. It also drew some praise from the growing ranks of democrats who are supportive of the White House Iraq policy.
But then there are the democratic critics, and they are a relatively small but a very powerful lot. And the democratic critic up here who has emerged as the staunchest critic of the president's Iraq policy is Robert Byrd. He spoke right after the president's speech on "LARRY KING LIVE" and said he was not impressed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.
But what he does in doing that is he obscures the fact that the United States Senate is being asked to vote on a resolution which puts the stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks and preventive war. I think that's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Among the most interesting words I read today came from someone else who might like the nomination in 2004, Senator Edwards, who is supportive of the president but.
KARL: Yes, this was interesting. Senator Edwards of North Carolina, clearly somebody thinking about running for president, has been one of those people that have come out and said that he will clearly support the president on this resolution. But in a speech today that was billed as a major policy speech, Edwards seemed to be almost in a debate with himself, because while he was supporting the president on this resolution he was also criticizing the president for going it alone. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The Country was Mislead into War !
But, after the attacks by Osama bin Laden, war seemed so patriotic. Didn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)