Armstrong Williams
Monday, Apr. 12, 2004
Members of Al Qaeda had planned to launch additional September 11 style attacks on The Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to transcripts from the interrogation of Khalid Shakh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's Chief Operating Office.
The transcripts, published by a British newspaper, reveal that Al Qadea had planned a second wave of attacks on the heels of September 11 targeting the west coast. Those plans were aborted, Mohammad said, because of President Bush's decisive crackdown on terrorist threats.
This suggest two things: 1) Thousands and possibly millions of lives were saved because President Bush took the battle to them; 2) Al Qadea assumed we would offer a small, measured response to September 11 attacks. That is to say, they assumed we were soft.
They had good reason. For the better part of the 90's, our foreign policy has offered largely symbolic responses to growing terrorist threats. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 224 individuals.
In 2000 they detonated a bomb alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 servicemen. There is strong evidence that Al Qaeda organized the 1993 bombing of the world Trade center.
Just as there is strong evidence that Syria and Iran funneled money and personnel into the terrorist organization that had declared war on our way of life. Just as they had backed Hezbollah, the group that bombed a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 individuals.
So how did the US respond to these brutal terrorist attacks? Mostly with small, measured gestures, like hurling a few missiles at an abandoned Al Qaeda training facility, or trying to indict specific terrorists as criminals, rather than confronting the rogue states that were sponsoring them.
After the headlines faded, we curled back into the fetal position. Our response told the world that we were soft. It proclaimed that the United States was built on false stilts, that we could be yanked down. It encouraged our attackers.
This is why Saddam Hussein believed in 1991 that if he tied US Soldiers to the front of his tanks, he could sweep undeterred into Kuwait. It is why Al Qaeda thought our society would crumble if they crashed some planes into our buildings.
President Bush did something far more reasonable. He offered a disproportionate response. He bombed Afghanistan. He declared his intent to snuff out the terrorist organizations that had declared war on us. And then, perhaps most importantly, he bombed Iraq.
His bold and decisive response demonstrated in no uncertain terms that America would not willingly stand by and wait for another attack, which was important, because up until recently, that was very much in doubt.
Now that we have a base of operations in Iraq, we can convincingly offer the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Iran a choice: make peace with us or peace with terrorists. If it is peace with terrorist, they will have to pay a heavy price. If they chose peace with us, they must crack down on the terrorist groups that operate within their sphere of control. They can no longer have it both ways.
The ripple effect has been plain to see: Libya has voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of its weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. As a result, the world is being made safer.
I am reminded of when former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office and promptly set about cracking down on the terrorist organizations that had declared war on Israel. The international media quivered at his response.
It should however be noted that under Netanyahu's stewardship, suicide bombings were nearly non existent and Israel managed treaties with neighboring Egypt and Jordan.
This tenuous peace came about not because Arab societies suddenly recognized the inalienable value of basic human rights, but because Netanyahu had made clear that Israel would not be dislodged.
America has finally done the same. That newfound resolve is paying dividends. Terrorists are being rounded up, regimes that harbor and sponsor them have been defeated, and states pursuing weapons of mass destruction are getting the message. At the same time, America is making it possible for democracy to spread throughout the world.
Something to think about when you vote this election, because whether you like it or not, you will be sending a message to the rest of the world about the consequences of sponsoring terrorist organizations and developing illegal weapons programs.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/9/112215.shtml
Monday, Apr. 12, 2004
Members of Al Qaeda had planned to launch additional September 11 style attacks on The Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to transcripts from the interrogation of Khalid Shakh Mohammed, Al Qaeda's Chief Operating Office.
The transcripts, published by a British newspaper, reveal that Al Qadea had planned a second wave of attacks on the heels of September 11 targeting the west coast. Those plans were aborted, Mohammad said, because of President Bush's decisive crackdown on terrorist threats.
This suggest two things: 1) Thousands and possibly millions of lives were saved because President Bush took the battle to them; 2) Al Qadea assumed we would offer a small, measured response to September 11 attacks. That is to say, they assumed we were soft.
They had good reason. For the better part of the 90's, our foreign policy has offered largely symbolic responses to growing terrorist threats. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing 224 individuals.
In 2000 they detonated a bomb alongside the USS Cole in Yemen, killing 17 servicemen. There is strong evidence that Al Qaeda organized the 1993 bombing of the world Trade center.
Just as there is strong evidence that Syria and Iran funneled money and personnel into the terrorist organization that had declared war on our way of life. Just as they had backed Hezbollah, the group that bombed a US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, killing 241 individuals.
So how did the US respond to these brutal terrorist attacks? Mostly with small, measured gestures, like hurling a few missiles at an abandoned Al Qaeda training facility, or trying to indict specific terrorists as criminals, rather than confronting the rogue states that were sponsoring them.
After the headlines faded, we curled back into the fetal position. Our response told the world that we were soft. It proclaimed that the United States was built on false stilts, that we could be yanked down. It encouraged our attackers.
This is why Saddam Hussein believed in 1991 that if he tied US Soldiers to the front of his tanks, he could sweep undeterred into Kuwait. It is why Al Qaeda thought our society would crumble if they crashed some planes into our buildings.
President Bush did something far more reasonable. He offered a disproportionate response. He bombed Afghanistan. He declared his intent to snuff out the terrorist organizations that had declared war on us. And then, perhaps most importantly, he bombed Iraq.
His bold and decisive response demonstrated in no uncertain terms that America would not willingly stand by and wait for another attack, which was important, because up until recently, that was very much in doubt.
Now that we have a base of operations in Iraq, we can convincingly offer the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Iran a choice: make peace with us or peace with terrorists. If it is peace with terrorist, they will have to pay a heavy price. If they chose peace with us, they must crack down on the terrorist groups that operate within their sphere of control. They can no longer have it both ways.
The ripple effect has been plain to see: Libya has voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of its weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. As a result, the world is being made safer.
I am reminded of when former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office and promptly set about cracking down on the terrorist organizations that had declared war on Israel. The international media quivered at his response.
It should however be noted that under Netanyahu's stewardship, suicide bombings were nearly non existent and Israel managed treaties with neighboring Egypt and Jordan.
This tenuous peace came about not because Arab societies suddenly recognized the inalienable value of basic human rights, but because Netanyahu had made clear that Israel would not be dislodged.
America has finally done the same. That newfound resolve is paying dividends. Terrorists are being rounded up, regimes that harbor and sponsor them have been defeated, and states pursuing weapons of mass destruction are getting the message. At the same time, America is making it possible for democracy to spread throughout the world.
Something to think about when you vote this election, because whether you like it or not, you will be sending a message to the rest of the world about the consequences of sponsoring terrorist organizations and developing illegal weapons programs.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/9/112215.shtml
