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.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
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?
The Country was Mislead into War in Iraq.
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.
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Well, it was. It was stripped of almost all the kind of rhetorical stuff that you expect of presidential speeches. I mean Michael Gerson (ph), his chief speechwriter, is very good at that. This struck me as a prosecutor's brief, the summoning of all the evidence, the specifics of it. This is what a defector said after leaving in 1995; here's what our pictures said.
And I was surprised. I had thought he would make a kind of more domestic speech, praising, say, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, maybe subtly isolating some of the Democrats. He was so far from getting near the politics of this and so determined to set out the evidence that it was a very, yes, stern is a good word.
BROWN: Did you find it effective in the way it was presented?
GREENFIELD: You know, yes. What I was thinking about -- and this is how the White House would like to think about it, I'm sure -- is suppose someone were trying to give a speech urging the international community to stop Hitler in 1935 or 1936, pre-Austria, pre-Czechoslovakia, pre-Poland, maybe even pre-Rhineland. That was the tone of this.
I mean this is actually a throwback to the arguments before Vietnam, (UNINTELLIGIBLE); namely, the domino theory in a way. If you don't stop them here you are going to have to stop them here and the consequences will be greater.
And I think that by setting out at the very beginning of the speech, saying, look, you all have a lot of questions and they're legitimate. Let me try to answer them. I thought he summoned the evidence well.
BROWN: Was there in the speech to your ear a sort of deal closer argument?
GREENFIELD: Look, I think the most strongly felt belief of some of the people who are less inclined to the pre-emptive notion and less inclined to the view not in the speech that, if we do this in Iraq we can change the whole Middle East, was the argument about blackmail. When he said if Saddam gets a hold of nuclear weapons he'd be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression.
I think people who are not keen on the more grandiose vision of some of the hawks do believe that. That that's what worries them more than a kind of a -- you know he'll take Pittsburgh in two weeks.
BROWN: Yes. I was struck by -- the president, at one point, acknowledged there is no -- where nuclear weapons are a clear smoking gun, but…
GREENFIELD: Yes. And that I think is the hardest sell he has (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He was saying, we don't know, and that's the problem. And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
But I do think that the very fact that he stayed away from a kind of more Stentorian rhetoric we're sometimes used to is probably a smart move.
BROWN: Thank you. Thanks for coming in, Jeff Greenfield.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the U.S. Supreme Court says no thanks to getting in the middle of New Jersey's Senate race. We could have invited Jeff in to talk about that too.
Next, another sniper attack outside of Washington. This one gets worse by the day. And we continue in a moment.
This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
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.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
BROWN: A number of other stories making news around the country. Briefly, tonight, we begin on Wall Street.
Another sell-off. This one late in the day. The Dow fell more than 100 points, in part because of profit warnings from sears and also increasing concern about the possibility of a war with Iraq. Here we go with another week.
Another factor in the market's decline, this ongoing west coast port lockout. The president today signed an executive order creating a board of inquiry which will look into the dispute between longshoremen and management. The cost of the port shutdown is estimated at $2 billion a day. It seems to me that is up a billion dollars from last week, isn't it?
A guilty plea today from a former WorldCom accounting director for falsifying financial records. He said he did so at his boss's request. Buford Yates is the second executive agreeing to help the government with its case involving WorldCom.
And the space shuttle Atlantis. these pictures -- you cannot get prettier pictures than this. Lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center today. A video camera mounted near the top of the external fuel tanks gives us a new way of looking at a shuttle launch. It was the first shuttle flight in four months. The entire fleet grounded this past summer because of cracks in the fuel lines. They're off to the international space station for 11 days, if all goes well.
That is -- you know, no matter how many times you see that, it's something.
Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk with "New York Times" columnist Nick Kristof who is just back from Baghdad.
Up next, the War on Terror, catching the big fish, the little fish, or just an old shoe. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Well, it was. It was stripped of almost all the kind of rhetorical stuff that you expect of presidential speeches. I mean Michael Gerson (ph), his chief speechwriter, is very good at that. This struck me as a prosecutor's brief, the summoning of all the evidence, the specifics of it. This is what a defector said after leaving in 1995; here's what our pictures said.
And I was surprised. I had thought he would make a kind of more domestic speech, praising, say, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, maybe subtly isolating some of the Democrats. He was so far from getting near the politics of this and so determined to set out the evidence that it was a very, yes, stern is a good word.
BROWN: Did you find it effective in the way it was presented?
GREENFIELD: You know, yes. What I was thinking about -- and this is how the White House would like to think about it, I'm sure -- is suppose someone were trying to give a speech urging the international community to stop Hitler in 1935 or 1936, pre-Austria, pre-Czechoslovakia, pre-Poland, maybe even pre-Rhineland. That was the tone of this.
I mean this is actually a throwback to the arguments before Vietnam, (UNINTELLIGIBLE); namely, the domino theory in a way. If you don't stop them here you are going to have to stop them here and the consequences will be greater.
And I think that by setting out at the very beginning of the speech, saying, look, you all have a lot of questions and they're legitimate. Let me try to answer them. I thought he summoned the evidence well.
BROWN: Was there in the speech to your ear a sort of deal closer argument?
GREENFIELD: Look, I think the most strongly felt belief of some of the people who are less inclined to the pre-emptive notion and less inclined to the view not in the speech that, if we do this in Iraq we can change the whole Middle East, was the argument about blackmail. When he said if Saddam gets a hold of nuclear weapons he'd be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression.
I think people who are not keen on the more grandiose vision of some of the hawks do believe that. That that's what worries them more than a kind of a -- you know he'll take Pittsburgh in two weeks.
BROWN: Yes. I was struck by -- the president, at one point, acknowledged there is no -- where nuclear weapons are a clear smoking gun, but…
GREENFIELD: Yes. And that I think is the hardest sell he has (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He was saying, we don't know, and that's the problem. And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
And he used the line that's been used many times before by Condoleeza Rice and others, you know, we can't wait fro the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
I don't think he has convinced the people who think, look, we have contained this guy for 11 years. This notion that he's chomping at the bit to do terrible things is wrong. He cares more about his own survival and Iraq's survival.
But I do think that the very fact that he stayed away from a kind of more Stentorian rhetoric we're sometimes used to is probably a smart move.
BROWN: Thank you. Thanks for coming in, Jeff Greenfield.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, the U.S. Supreme Court says no thanks to getting in the middle of New Jersey's Senate race. We could have invited Jeff in to talk about that too.
Next, another sniper attack outside of Washington. This one gets worse by the day. And we continue in a moment.
This is NEWSNIGHT from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
-- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
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.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
BROWN: A number of other stories making news around the country. Briefly, tonight, we begin on Wall Street.
Another sell-off. This one late in the day. The Dow fell more than 100 points, in part because of profit warnings from sears and also increasing concern about the possibility of a war with Iraq. Here we go with another week.
Another factor in the market's decline, this ongoing west coast port lockout. The president today signed an executive order creating a board of inquiry which will look into the dispute between longshoremen and management. The cost of the port shutdown is estimated at $2 billion a day. It seems to me that is up a billion dollars from last week, isn't it?
A guilty plea today from a former WorldCom accounting director for falsifying financial records. He said he did so at his boss's request. Buford Yates is the second executive agreeing to help the government with its case involving WorldCom.
And the space shuttle Atlantis. these pictures -- you cannot get prettier pictures than this. Lifted off from the Kennedy Space Center today. A video camera mounted near the top of the external fuel tanks gives us a new way of looking at a shuttle launch. It was the first shuttle flight in four months. The entire fleet grounded this past summer because of cracks in the fuel lines. They're off to the international space station for 11 days, if all goes well.
That is -- you know, no matter how many times you see that, it's something.
Still to come on NEWSNIGHT, we'll talk with "New York Times" columnist Nick Kristof who is just back from Baghdad.
Up next, the War on Terror, catching the big fish, the little fish, or just an old shoe. This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Now on to Osama bin Laden and a few other stories making news around the world tonight. Al Jazeera, today, broadcast what it said was a tape from bin Laden. On it, a voice warns of more attacks against the United States. I promise you the voice says that Islamic youth are preparing for something that will fill your hearts with terror. At least that's what the voice on the tape says.
More violence in the Middle East today. This might have led the program, too, on any other night. At least 14 people killed, about 100 wounded after an Israeli military operation in Gaza. The Israelis say they were going after Hamas, when they opened fire with tanks and helicopters on a number of crowded residential areas. Palestinians say the victims were civilians including at least one young child.
No answers yet to the explosion and fire aboard a French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen. At first, officials in Yemen denied it could have been the work of terrorists. The French, however, called it a suicide attack. Now both are saying they are not sure what all happened here. And the fire, meantime, continues to burn.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, how folks in the middle of the country are looking at the possibility of war with Iraq. And up next, we'll talk with Nick Kristof, of "The New York Times," who is just back from Baghdad.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.
And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.
By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)
There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.
BROWN: Now on to Osama bin Laden and a few other stories making news around the world tonight. Al Jazeera, today, broadcast what it said was a tape from bin Laden. On it, a voice warns of more attacks against the United States. I promise you the voice says that Islamic youth are preparing for something that will fill your hearts with terror. At least that's what the voice on the tape says.
More violence in the Middle East today. This might have led the program, too, on any other night. At least 14 people killed, about 100 wounded after an Israeli military operation in Gaza. The Israelis say they were going after Hamas, when they opened fire with tanks and helicopters on a number of crowded residential areas. Palestinians say the victims were civilians including at least one young child.
No answers yet to the explosion and fire aboard a French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen. At first, officials in Yemen denied it could have been the work of terrorists. The French, however, called it a suicide attack. Now both are saying they are not sure what all happened here. And the fire, meantime, continues to burn.
Ahead on NEWSNIGHT, how folks in the middle of the country are looking at the possibility of war with Iraq. And up next, we'll talk with Nick Kristof, of "The New York Times," who is just back from Baghdad.
This is NEWSNIGHT on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
The Country was Mislead into War in Iraq
Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.
That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
BROWN: Our next guest recently spent some time in Iraq, looked around, talked to the people, came back with some questions about what the U.S. might have in store, if it does come to a fight. Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for "The New York Times," and we're glad to say no stranger to the program. We're glad he is back safely. Welcome.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thank you.
BROWN: We like when guests bring stuff, too.
Show and tell.
BROWN: Particularly if it's money. This reminds me of, my father once a hundred years ago, it seems like, brought back all sorts of lira. He said here's 10 million lira. It was worth about a nickel. I gather that's what you brought in here.
KRISTOF: I was a millionaire in Iraqi Dinar. Each of these is worth about 10 cents. And you know, it's all in bundles of a hundred bills. So when I paid my hotel bill it was with a shopping bag with about 20 pounds of Dinah.
BROWN: Is it a country that believes that war is inevitable?
KRISTOF: Maybe not inevitable, but there is a strong sense that it is probably coming. There's a lot of fatalism about that. A lot of talk about that. A lot of nervousness.
BROWN: Are they a country that -- the president said, talked tonight about that they'll welcome the Americans in the way the Afghans welcomed the Americans in. Is that your impression?
KRISTOF: I think that's a complete misreading of the situation. I think that -- first of all, I should say it's very hard as a Westerner, there in Iraq to really get a clear understanding of what Iraqis think. But to the extent you can tell, you get a very strong sense, A -- that Iraqis don't like Saddam Hussein, that they think he has led them deeply astray, that he's impoverished the country, that they're very hostile to Saddam and his family.
But you also get the sense that they also dislike the U.S., distrust the U.S., they think the U.S. is after their oil. They blame the U.S. for sanctions. And I mean, fundamentally, I think you get the sense that Saddam's propaganda hasn't been effective in bolstering his own image, but it has been effective in tarnishing the U.S. image.
BROWN: It's a complicated place in that there are really three kind of distinct regions in the country with three distinct population groups. And we've talked a lot about the Kurds in the north. But there's this whole group in the south. What happens there if war comes?
KRISTOF: I mean, I think that a real headache will begin the day after Saddam is toppled because, historically, the 16 percent of the population that is Sunni Muslim, is basically around the country. And about 60 percent is Shiaa Muslim.
And there was an enormous rebellion in the south in 1991 after the Gulf War. This time, I think, the moment Saddam is toppled, these places are going to rebel again. There's going to be an uprising. Anybody associated with the regime is going to be, you know, lynched, essentially. And the question is what do we do?
BROWN: Is this Rwanda?
KRISTOF: It's not to that level. It's not exactly every Shiaa against every Sunni. But on the other hand, anybody associated with the regime in these places is going to be in enormous trouble. I think these guys are having sleepless nights thinking about it. And I think there will be a huge amount of bloodshed.
BROWN: You know, Saddam may not have learned the broad lesson about taking on the Americans and the world, but it does sound like he has learned one lesson about fighting the Americans, and that's not lay your army out in the desert to be picked at.
KRISTOF: That's right. I went down to Basra in the south and went from Basra down to the Kuwait border because that will probably be a key invasion route when the Americans go in, if they do. And there were no fortifications, no tanks, no troops in that whole area. And everybody you talk to say that they're not going to put their tanks out in the open. They're going to keep them in the cities. They're going to have their guns and all their defenses in the cities to make it very difficult for the U.S. to attack. You know, because we're not able to really bomb the cities without horrendous casualties.
BROWN: Do they count an American sense of, I don't know, morality?
KRISTOF: Yes. Absolutely. When I was there, I took a plane right through a no-fly zone. And I was nervous about, you know, are the Americans going to shoot down this plane? But every Iraqi around me was just cool as ice.
And they were -- I mean, they knew, and they were completely right, that of course the U.S. wouldn't shoot down a civilian plane going through a no-fly zone. And I think that's exactly Saddam's calculation, is by putting heavy artillery and guns in the cities. Especially in Baghdad and in his hometown of Tikrit (ph), which will probably be the main targets.
BROWN: I don't know, half a minute or so, maybe a little more. The newspapers you brought with you.
KRISTOF: Okay. This is a typical Iraqi paper. This is "Algom Haria" (ph), which is the republic. You know, Saddam right here. This is the English language version. You know, the lead headline is a story which, unfortunately, we missed in "The New York Times." President Hussein receives telegram.
BROWN: Why is there an English language paper at all?
KRISTOF: It's propaganda. I mean, it's to present to foreigners there. I might say that a lot of Iraqis get news via foreign radio. So they do have other sources.
BROWN: I can't imagine it was anything but a fascinating experience to have been there in this moment. It's nice to see you.
KRISTOF: Good to be here.
BROWN: I hope you'll come back and talk to us more about this.
KRISTOF: I'd be happy.
BROWN: Thank you. Nick Kristof of "The New York Times."
Let's take a short break, come back and hear what's on your minds, at least if you live in Chicago, about the possibility of war in Iraq. This is NEWSNIGHT.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
May God bless America. (Applause.)
END 8:31 P.M. EDT
Public; Senate Argues Along Party Lines Over Iraq Resolution>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Finally, from us tonight, voices of concern. I think all of us have been trying to figure out where the country is as far as Iraq is concerned. There's no perfect way to know these things. No poll is perfect. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just start talking to people and listen carefully to what they have to say.
CNN's Candy Crowley did just that in Chicago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That our country may go to war, that concerns me. I have different friends that are in the military.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think we should go. It's too -- not only is it too political, but I smell oil some place.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm up in the air about Iraq, right now. I do believe something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein. I believe he has military weapons.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and it really is a tough question to answer, and to jump -- and innocent lives are going to be affected by that.
JAMES WARREN, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": It's something people at the barber shop and elsewhere are talking about a little bit more, but doing so while scratching their head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the threat of Saddam Hussein and what he's capable of is more of a concern, right now to me, than I think that we have to start now before he gets, you know, nuclear armament.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Saddam thing is, of course, another issue that's very troublesome. Should we, shouldn't we? Is he? Isn't he?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he's a bad guy, and we should get rid of him. I'm not totally comfortable that we've really thought through the process of how to do that.
WARREN: By and large, people will support Bush, who still is the beneficiary of a tremendous amount of post-September 11 goodwill.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But if we don't have that coalition, I think we have to understand that we were attacked and that we have the responsibility to protect our country. And that might mean going alone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If Saddam's out of order, and we find he's really out of order, the American people will back the president.
On October 8, 2002
D.C.-Area Residents Remain Fearful of Serial Sniper; U.S. Marine Killed in Drive-By Attack in Kuwait; Israeli Raid Kills More Than 15
Aired October 8, 2002 - 22:00 ET
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone….
…. BROWN: Kathleen, thank you. Back to you at the top of the program.
A different kind of terror attack thousands of miles away. This one in Kuwait. Christiane Amanpour is on location there.
Christiane, a headline please.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, one U.S. Marine was killed, another one wounded in a drive-by attack. They are calling it terrorism. But there will be more investigations to determine who these people were affiliated to.
BROWN: Christiane, thank you, on the video phone. ...
That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.
Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.
On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.
America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.
Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.
Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.
BROWN: Our next guest recently spent some time in Iraq, looked around, talked to the people, came back with some questions about what the U.S. might have in store, if it does come to a fight. Nicholas Kristof is a columnist for "The New York Times," and we're glad to say no stranger to the program. We're glad he is back safely. Welcome.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thank you.
BROWN: We like when guests bring stuff, too.
Show and tell.
BROWN: Particularly if it's money. This reminds me of, my father once a hundred years ago, it seems like, brought back all sorts of lira. He said here's 10 million lira. It was worth about a nickel. I gather that's what you brought in here.
KRISTOF: I was a millionaire in Iraqi Dinar. Each of these is worth about 10 cents. And you know, it's all in bundles of a hundred bills. So when I paid my hotel bill it was with a shopping bag with about 20 pounds of Dinah.
BROWN: Is it a country that believes that war is inevitable?
KRISTOF: Maybe not inevitable, but there is a strong sense that it is probably coming. There's a lot of fatalism about that. A lot of talk about that. A lot of nervousness.
BROWN: Are they a country that -- the president said, talked tonight about that they'll welcome the Americans in the way the Afghans welcomed the Americans in. Is that your impression?
KRISTOF: I think that's a complete misreading of the situation. I think that -- first of all, I should say it's very hard as a Westerner, there in Iraq to really get a clear understanding of what Iraqis think. But to the extent you can tell, you get a very strong sense, A -- that Iraqis don't like Saddam Hussein, that they think he has led them deeply astray, that he's impoverished the country, that they're very hostile to Saddam and his family.
But you also get the sense that they also dislike the U.S., distrust the U.S., they think the U.S. is after their oil. They blame the U.S. for sanctions. And I mean, fundamentally, I think you get the sense that Saddam's propaganda hasn't been effective in bolstering his own image, but it has been effective in tarnishing the U.S. image.
BROWN: It's a complicated place in that there are really three kind of distinct regions in the country with three distinct population groups. And we've talked a lot about the Kurds in the north. But there's this whole group in the south. What happens there if war comes?
KRISTOF: I mean, I think that a real headache will begin the day after Saddam is toppled because, historically, the 16 percent of the population that is Sunni Muslim, is basically around the country. And about 60 percent is Shiaa Muslim.
And there was an enormous rebellion in the south in 1991 after the Gulf War. This time, I think, the moment Saddam is toppled, these places are going to rebel again. There's going to be an uprising. Anybody associated with the regime is going to be, you know, lynched, essentially. And the question is what do we do?
BROWN: Is this Rwanda?
KRISTOF: It's not to that level. It's not exactly every Shiaa against every Sunni. But on the other hand, anybody associated with the regime in these places is going to be in enormous trouble. I think these guys are having sleepless nights thinking about it. And I think there will be a huge amount of bloodshed.
BROWN: You know, Saddam may not have learned the broad lesson about taking on the Americans and the world, but it does sound like he has learned one lesson about fighting the Americans, and that's not lay your army out in the desert to be picked at.
KRISTOF: That's right. I went down to Basra in the south and went from Basra down to the Kuwait border because that will probably be a key invasion route when the Americans go in, if they do. And there were no fortifications, no tanks, no troops in that whole area. And everybody you talk to say that they're not going to put their tanks out in the open. They're going to keep them in the cities. They're going to have their guns and all their defenses in the cities to make it very difficult for the U.S. to attack. You know, because we're not able to really bomb the cities without horrendous casualties.
BROWN: Do they count an American sense of, I don't know, morality?
KRISTOF: Yes. Absolutely. When I was there, I took a plane right through a no-fly zone. And I was nervous about, you know, are the Americans going to shoot down this plane? But every Iraqi around me was just cool as ice.
And they were -- I mean, they knew, and they were completely right, that of course the U.S. wouldn't shoot down a civilian plane going through a no-fly zone. And I think that's exactly Saddam's calculation, is by putting heavy artillery and guns in the cities. Especially in Baghdad and in his hometown of Tikrit (ph), which will probably be the main targets.
BROWN: I don't know, half a minute or so, maybe a little more. The newspapers you brought with you.
KRISTOF: Okay. This is a typical Iraqi paper. This is "Algom Haria" (ph), which is the republic. You know, Saddam right here. This is the English language version. You know, the lead headline is a story which, unfortunately, we missed in "The New York Times." President Hussein receives telegram.
BROWN: Why is there an English language paper at all?
KRISTOF: It's propaganda. I mean, it's to present to foreigners there. I might say that a lot of Iraqis get news via foreign radio. So they do have other sources.
BROWN: I can't imagine it was anything but a fascinating experience to have been there in this moment. It's nice to see you.
KRISTOF: Good to be here.
BROWN: I hope you'll come back and talk to us more about this.
KRISTOF: I'd be happy.
BROWN: Thank you. Nick Kristof of "The New York Times."
Let's take a short break, come back and hear what's on your minds, at least if you live in Chicago, about the possibility of war in Iraq. This is NEWSNIGHT.
Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
May God bless America. (Applause.)
END 8:31 P.M. EDT
Public; Senate Argues Along Party Lines Over Iraq Resolution>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Finally, from us tonight, voices of concern. I think all of us have been trying to figure out where the country is as far as Iraq is concerned. There's no perfect way to know these things. No poll is perfect. Sometimes the best thing you can do is just start talking to people and listen carefully to what they have to say.
CNN's Candy Crowley did just that in Chicago.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That our country may go to war, that concerns me. I have different friends that are in the military.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think we should go. It's too -- not only is it too political, but I smell oil some place.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm up in the air about Iraq, right now. I do believe something needs to be done about Saddam Hussein. I believe he has military weapons.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, and it really is a tough question to answer, and to jump -- and innocent lives are going to be affected by that.
JAMES WARREN, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": It's something people at the barber shop and elsewhere are talking about a little bit more, but doing so while scratching their head.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the threat of Saddam Hussein and what he's capable of is more of a concern, right now to me, than I think that we have to start now before he gets, you know, nuclear armament.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The Saddam thing is, of course, another issue that's very troublesome. Should we, shouldn't we? Is he? Isn't he?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think he's a bad guy, and we should get rid of him. I'm not totally comfortable that we've really thought through the process of how to do that.
WARREN: By and large, people will support Bush, who still is the beneficiary of a tremendous amount of post-September 11 goodwill.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But if we don't have that coalition, I think we have to understand that we were attacked and that we have the responsibility to protect our country. And that might mean going alone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If Saddam's out of order, and we find he's really out of order, the American people will back the president.
On October 8, 2002
D.C.-Area Residents Remain Fearful of Serial Sniper; U.S. Marine Killed in Drive-By Attack in Kuwait; Israeli Raid Kills More Than 15
Aired October 8, 2002 - 22:00 ET
AARON BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening again, everyone….
…. BROWN: Kathleen, thank you. Back to you at the top of the program.
A different kind of terror attack thousands of miles away. This one in Kuwait. Christiane Amanpour is on location there.
Christiane, a headline please.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Aaron, one U.S. Marine was killed, another one wounded in a drive-by attack. They are calling it terrorism. But there will be more investigations to determine who these people were affiliated to.
BROWN: Christiane, thank you, on the video phone. ...
Masters of War by Pearl Jam
Come you masters of war, you that build all the guns
You that build the death place, you that build all the guns
You that hide behind walls, you that hide behind desks
I just want you to know, I can see through your masks
You that never done nothing, but to build and destroy
You play with my world, like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand, then you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther as the fast bullets fly
Like judas of old, you lie and deceive
A world war can be won, and you want me to believe
But I see through your eyes, and I see through your brain
Like I see through the water that runs down my drain
You that fasten all the triggers, for the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch, while the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion, while young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies and is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear, that could ever be hurled
The fear to bring children, into this world
For threatenin' my baby, unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins
How much do I know, to talk out of turn?
You might say that I'm young, you might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know, though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question, is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness? do you think that it could?
Oh, I think you will find, when your death takes its toll
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die, and your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket, in the pale afternoon
And I'll watch as your lowered, into your deathbed
And I'll stand on your grave till I'm sure that your dead
You that build the death place, you that build all the guns
You that hide behind walls, you that hide behind desks
I just want you to know, I can see through your masks
You that never done nothing, but to build and destroy
You play with my world, like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand, then you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther as the fast bullets fly
Like judas of old, you lie and deceive
A world war can be won, and you want me to believe
But I see through your eyes, and I see through your brain
Like I see through the water that runs down my drain
You that fasten all the triggers, for the others to fire
Then you sit back and watch, while the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion, while young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies and is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear, that could ever be hurled
The fear to bring children, into this world
For threatenin' my baby, unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood that runs in your veins
How much do I know, to talk out of turn?
You might say that I'm young, you might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know, though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question, is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness? do you think that it could?
Oh, I think you will find, when your death takes its toll
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die, and your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket, in the pale afternoon
And I'll watch as your lowered, into your deathbed
And I'll stand on your grave till I'm sure that your dead
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)