Resolution 1441
8 November 2002
United Nations Security Council
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure tocomply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import anduse of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Address to the United Nations General Assembly
2 September 2002
President George Bush
Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.
We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and the people of the United States are grateful.
The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war -- the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.
Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.
As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. (Applause.) This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.
Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.
In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.
In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.
In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.
As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.
We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.
Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.
The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.
Thank you very much.
Following is a letter of exhortation dated February, 2004 (the exact date is not known) from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to al Qaeda insurgents.
1. The foreign Mujahidin: Their numbers continue to be small, compared to the large nature of the expected battle. We know that there are enough good groups and jihad is continuing, despite the negative rumors. What is preventing us from making a general call to arms is the fact that the country of Iraq has no mountains in which to seek refuge, or forest in which to hide. Our presence is apparent and our movement is out in the open. Eyes are everywhere. The enemy is before us and the sea is behind us. Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother; however, they will not allow you to make their homes a base for operations or a safe house. People who will allow you to do such things are very rare, rarer than red sulfur. Therefore, it has been extremely difficult to lodge and keep safe a number of brothers, and also train new recruits. Praised be to Allah, however, with relentless effort and searching we have acquired some places and their numbers are increasing, to become base points for the brothers who will spark war and bring the people of this country into a real battle with god's will.
2. The present and future: there is no doubt that American losses were significant because they are spread thin amongst the people and because it is easy to get weapons. This is a fact that makes them easy targets, attractive for the believers. America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes. It is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (saddam) Husayn and his cohorts. (headquarters comment: it is not clear to whom "it" is referring, but it appears to mean the united states.) There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening.
3. So where are we? Despite few supporters, lack of friends, and tough times, god has blessed us with victories against the enemy. We were involved in all the martyrdom operations — in terms of overseeing, preparing, and planning — that took place in this country except for the operations that took place in the north. Praised be to Allah, i have completed 25 of these operations, some of them against the Shi'a and their leaders, the Americans and their military, the police, the military, and the coalition forces. There will be more in the future, god willing. We did not want to publicly claim these operations until we become more powerful and were ready for the consequences. We need to show up strong and avoid getting hurt, now that we have made great strides and taken important steps forward. As we get closer to the decisive moment, we feel that our entity is spreading within the security void existing in Iraq, something that will allow us to secure bases on the ground, these bases that will be the jump start of a serious revival, god willing.
4. Plan of action: after much inquiry and discussion, we have narrowed our enemy to four groups:
A. Americans as you know, these are the biggest cowards that god has created and the easiest target. And we ask god to allow us to kill, and detain them, so that we can exchange them with our arrested shaykhs and brothers.
B. Kurds these are a pain and a thorn, and it is not time yet to deal with them. They are last on our list, even though we are trying to get to some of their leaders. God willing.
C. The Iraqi troops, police, and agents these are the eyes, ears, and hand of the occupier. With god's permission, we are determined to target them with force in the near future, before their power strengthens.
D. The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a. Despite their weakness, the Sunnis are strong-willed and honest and different from the coward and deceitful Shi'a, who only attack the weak. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people and they fear them. If it were not for those disappointing shaykhs, Sufis, and Muslim brothers, Sunnis would have a different attitude.
5. Way of action: As we have mentioned to you, our situation demands that we treat the issue with courage and clarity. So the solution, and god only knows, is that we need to bring the Shi'a into the battle because it is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. We need to do that because:
A. The Shi'a have declared a subtle war against Islam. They are the close, dangerous enemy of the Sunnis. Even if the Americans are also an archenemy, the Shi'a are a greater danger and their harm more destructive to the nation than that of the Americans who are anyway the original enemy by consensus.
B. They have supported the Americans, helped them, and stand with them against the Mujahidin. They work and continue to work towards the destruction of the Mujahidin.
C. Fighting the Shi'a is the way to take the nation to battle. The Shi'a have taken on the dress of the army, police, and the Iraqi security forces, and have raised the banner of protecting the nation, and the citizens. Under this banner, they have begun to assassinate the Sunnis under the pretense that they are saboteurs, vestiges of the Ba'th, or terrorists who spread perversion in the country. This is being done with strong media support directed by the governing council and the Americans, and they have succeeded in splitting the regular Sunni from the Mujahidin. For example, in what they call the Sunni triangle, the army and police are spreading out in these regions, putting in charge Sunnis from the same region. Therefore, the problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood, and appearance to the people of the region. This region is our base of operations from where we depart and to where we return. When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region. What will happen to us, if we fight them, and we have to fight them, is one of only two choices:
1) if we fight them, that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.
2) we can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like it has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By god, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again. People follow their leaders, their hearts may be with you, but their swords are with their kings. So i say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis. Some people will say, that this will be a reckless and irresponsible action that will bring the Islamic nation to a battle for which the Islamic nation is unprepared. Souls will perish and blood will be spilled. This is, however, exactly what we want, as there is nothing to win or lose in our situation. The Shi'a destroyed the balance, and the religion of god is worth more than lives. Until the majority stands up for the truth, we have to make sacrifices for this religion, and blood has to be spilled. For those who are good, we will speed up their trip to paradise, and the others, we will get rid of them.
By god, the religion of god is more precious than anything else. We have many rounds, attacks, and black nights with the Shi'a, and we cannot delay this. Their menace is looming and this is a fact that we should not fear, because they are the most cowardly people god has created. Killing their leaders will weaken them and with the death of the head, the whole group dies. They are not like the Sunnis. If you knew the fear in the souls of the Sunnis and their people, you would weep in sadness. How many of the mosques have they have turned in to Shi'a mosques ("husayniyas")? How many houses they have destroyed with their owners inside? How many brothers have they killed? How many sisters have been raped at the hands of those vile infidels?
If we are able to deal them blow after painful blow so that they engage in a battle, we will be able to reshuffle the cards so there will remain no value or influence for the ruling council, or even for the Americans who will enter into a second battle with the Shi'a. This is what we want. Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions. When the Mujahidin would have secured a land they can use as a base to hit the Shi'a inside their own lands, with a directed media and a strategic action, there will be a continuation between the Mujahidin inside and outside of Iraq. We are racing against time, in order to create squads of Mujahidin who seek refuge in secure places, spy on neighborhoods, and work on hunting down the enemies. The enemies are the Americans, police, and army. We have been training these people and augmenting their numbers.
As far as the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them. We have been working on monitoring the area and choosing the right people, looking for those who are on the straight path, so we can cooperate with them. We hope that we have made progress, and perhaps we will soon decide to go public — even if gradually — to display ourselves in full view. We have been hiding for a long time, and now we are seriously working on preparing a media outlet to reveal the truth, enflame zeal, and become an outlet for jihad in which the sword and the pen can turn into one. Along with this, we strive to illuminate the hindering errors of Islamic law and the clarifications of Islamic legal precepts by way of tapes, lessons, and courses which people will come to understand.
The suggested time for execution: we are hoping that we will soon start working on creating squads and brigades of individuals who have experience and expertise. We have to get to the zero-hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night and after that by day, god willing. The zero-hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place. As we see we are racing time, and if we succeed, which we are hoping, we will turn the tables on them and thwart their plan. If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.
6. What about you? You, noble brothers, leaders of jihad, we do not consider ourselves those who would compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did. The only thing we want is to be the head of the spear, assisting and providing a bridge over which the Muslim nation can cross to promised victory and a better tomorrow. As we have explained, this is our belief. So if you agree with it and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you, to work under your guidance and yield to your command. Indeed, we openly and publicly swear allegiance to you by using the media, in order to exasperate the infidels and confirm to the adherents of faith that one day, the believers will revel in god's victory. If you think otherwise, we will remain brothers, and disagreement will not destroy our cooperation and undermine our working together for what is best. We support jihad and wait for your response. May god keep for you the keys of goodness and preserve Islam and his people. Amen, amen.
From Andrew Sullivan and the Chronicle Online:
"We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."
So said Robert Brandon, Chairman of the Philosophy Department at Duke University in response to an advertisement by the Duke Conservative Union regarding the schools lack of ideological diversity.
Let me see if I understand this, the conservatism of St. Aquinas, St. Augustine, Friedrich Hayek, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman, William Buckley, George Will, Thomas Sowell, Abraham Lincoln, John Paul II, James Baker, Condi Rice, Robert George, Irving Kristol, John Locke and Adam Smith, results from their stupidity. Whereas, the liberal intellectualism of Ted Kennedy, Ted Danson, The Dixie Chicks, Woody Harrelson, Cold Play, Madonna, Run DMC, Billy Bragg, Barbara Striesand, Johnny Depp, Walter Duranty, Sean Penn, and Janet Jackson is a result of their being smart?
With apologies to Douglas Adams, you're a jerk Brandon, a real kneebiter.
Little detail has emerged regarding the alleged Kerry scandal. It is interesting to note that major American media outlets, notably the New York Times and the Washington Post, have nothing to say on the subject, while British media sources have begun digging into the controversy. The Sun published an article this morning that identifies the woman as Alex Polier, age 24, and quotes her father calling Kerry a "sleazeball".
Referring to the scandal on the Don Imus radio program this morning, Kerry said, "Well, there is nothing to report, so there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it." Parse this statement carefully (after all we do live in the post-Clinton era) and you will find that while it sounds like a denial, it denies nothing.
There is still an insufficiency of facts and it is premature to draw conclusions. If the rumors of Kerry having an adulterous affair with an intern prove true, however, one hopes that the Democrat party will spare America the ordeal of another pants-around-his-knees President whose every sentence requires parsing.
Dominating alternative media sources today, but predictably ignored by the establishment, was the rumor of an adultery scandal involving John Kerry. The story broke on the Drudge Report with a minimum of information and the assertion that details would be forthcoming from larger news venues. A number of blogs and talk radio shows rode the story obsessively throughout the day adding the dreaded "I" word, the assertion that the affair continued until Kerry decided to run for President, and that he pressured the woman to leave the country. Given the dearth of hard journalism it is too early for conclusions about the future of the Kerry campaign or his suitability to lead the country. Conclusions must, when possible, be reached after facts are gathered and reported.
I used to listen to National Public Radio (every morning and evening) for useful serious information; I now listen to NPR infrequently for insight into the liberal world perspective. What was once a left-leaning journalistic organization, capable of breaking news stories, and providing hard analysis of current events, has in the past five years become nothing more than a radio magazine spouting politically correct multi cultural pap. NPR today does not break news and provides only biased analysis of current events. What is worse, the programming is dominated by mindless and meaningless listener essays and music reviews on so called 'progressive' and 'world' music. I rather suspect that NPR management in the past decade made a conscious decision to attract a younger listening audience. In other words, the content has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
I mention NPR in the context of the Kerry rumor because driving home last night I was hopeful that "All Things Considered" would provide some context to the story. Silly of me to think that NPR would grapple with an unpleasant story that could adversely affect the Democrat frontrunner. NPR's editorial 'restraint' raises a larger question, at what point does a story making rounds in the alternative media become a story in its own right? I expect that the Drudge Report was visited by more people yesterday than read the New York Times and Washington Post combined. Is that not a story?
I am still angry with Islam as a result of visiting 'Ground Zero' yesterday.
While scanning headlines this morning, I was irritated to see an article in the Arab News Daily titled, "Islam Is the Only System That Preserves the Family". The article has Bajija Ezzee, the General Secretary of the International Muslim Organization for Women and Families (IMOWF), taking up the challenge of, "... a world that seems to be targeting Muslims, particularly women". One might think that Ezzee's impression of an Islamic world under fire results from the many thousands of Muslims murdered in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, until one remembers that most all of the victims were non-Muslims while all of the perpetrators were Muslims.
The article quotes Ezzee as saying, "Islam is the only system that preserves the family unit as opposed to most Western doctrines that focus on individualism”. She continues, "We concentrate on women and their rights within the family, although our total concern is the family as a whole.” In fact, the Koran is quite clear about the relationship between women and men, and their rights with respect to each other. Consider the following verses:
"Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty and wise." (II.282)
"A male shall inherit twice as much as a female." (IV:11)
"Men are in charge of women because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever high exalted, great." (IV:34)
"[Forbidden to you] are married women, except those whom you own as slaves." (IV:24)
"Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields from whichever side you please." (II:223)
What remains to be explained by Ezzee, or any other Muslim for that matter, is why anyone in the West would view as a lifeline for family preservation, a religion that claims misogyny is a directive from God.
A business opportunity led me to Manhattan this afternoon and while there I took time to visit ‘Ground Zero’. A once vibrant public space with two beautiful towers pointing to the heavens is now a great construction site. The only remnant of the old World Trade Center on view at Ground Zero is a cross of steel girders that was found standing in spite of the Islamist tantrum.
I reflected on memories from when the ‘Twin Towers’ still stood: with my family looking out over the city from the observation deck; seeing Joe Torre sign books in the subway station below; and with my friend Patrick trying to jump upward as one of the cavernous elevators began rapidly ascending. I miss those times, and I regret that bigots and murderers have taken the place where they occurred from me.
Since that dark day in September 2001, I have read much about Islam. I have studied the Koran as well as apologetic and exegetical works. I have read the passages in the Koran that counsel tolerance and love, and I have learned about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation that cancels those passages in favor of intolerance and bigotry. I have read and listened to arguments that Islam promotes a fundamental equality for all people, and I have studied enough of history, ‘dhimmitude’, and current events to see that this claim is false. I have met Muslims around the world, I have Muslim friends, I have learned that the vast majority of them are not Islamists and wish to live peacefully with their neighbors regardless of the literal teachings of their faith.
Ground Zero is an Islamic problem. The terrorists who flew passenger planes into the Twin Towers acted out of belief in the literal teachings of Islam. These teachings cannot be denied or ignored, but rather must be confronted and consigned to what President Bush called the "dustbin of history". The intolerance for discussion, debate and disagreement throughout the Islamic world prevents the intellectual encounter necessary to end Islamic bigotry and violence. Only when Muslims are literate and have freedom of conscience, and when Muslim governments respect free speech and free press, will the Islamic world be empowered to move beyond fundamentalism.
It surprised me that the cross of steel girders is displayed at Ground Zero. Secularists work hard to rid the public square of all reference to religion. Humanists argue for a re-writing of history so that all the great accomplishments of the Christian West are read as having occurred in spite of the Church, not because of it. The marginally intellectual types who lead American society are so often incapable of historical or theological distinctions. Multiculturalism and political correctness mandate a belief in the view the Judeo-Christian tradition is no better than any other tradition, and Christianity is no different in its fundamentals than Islam. To see the cross in public display at Ground Zero is to believe that God still animates America in spite of her elite class.
The plaza between the Twin Towers held a wonderful Fritz Koenig sculpture that combined an obvious image of the globe with a more abstract image of Atlas. A portion of the sculpture survived the World Trade Center attack. Early in her history, Christianity claimed the heritage of Greece, and synthesized its myths and philosophies, such that today, post-Renaissance and post-Reformation, the image of Atlas has metaphorical meaning in the West. It is fitting that a stubborn cross and a sculpture of Atlas survived the World Trade Center attack, as if to say that Christendom will continue to hold aloft the ideal of human rights for all of the world in spite of an intolerant and aggressive Islam so desperately in need of renaissance and reformation.
God bless all who were murdered on 11 September 2001 and God speed the war against terror.
In an editorial published Saturday in the Washington Post, Colbert King criticized Mayor Anthony William’s recent assertion that Washington, D.C. is “stronger than ever”. King interpreted the Mayor’s comments as meaning that, “The city's treasury is in the black, the financial control board is gone, the Washington real estate market is hot, hot, hot and the people who live off our town are making money once again.” Taking the Mayor to task, King wrote of recent and much-publicized instances of gun violence and family abuse including a fourteen year old boy stopped by police while driving a car in possession of a semiautomatic handgun and a submachine gun, and six children abandoned to conditions of squalor and starvation by their mother.
Reading King, one might conclude that his black and white portrait adequately captures the current state of Washington, D.C. It does not.
Washington today is a better place to live than at any point in the past fifteen years. For the first time in my memory, street sweepers clean neighborhoods twice weekly, streets and sidewalks are repaired, trees are replaced, parks are refurbished and made both safe and accessible… in short the government is responding to broad citizen needs.
This does not detract from the human tragedies to which King calls attention. He is correct in asserting that the “…collapsed state of black family life in our city..” correlates with “dysfunctional homes and the chaos in our public schools and on our streets”. The collapse in black family life, however, is not a new phenomenon in Washington, or elsewhere.
King neglected to mention that frequent violence in Washington occurs in spite of strict gun control laws; that poor black families subsist in servitude to welfare programs; and that school reform has been on the agenda of every city council in recent memory. He implies that the interests of business and development are juxtaposed to those of the black family; but he does not connect the liberal plantation run by the Democrat party to the collapsed state of the black family.
Almost to a man, black and Democrat leaders have opposed the most important effort to improve chances for upward mobility amongst black people in Washington. Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton worked to defeat the city's recently passed school voucher program. A program that empowers parents to seek education for their children beyond the confines of the liberal plantation.
Mayor William's support was critical to passage of the school voucher program.
President Bush today appointed a bipartisan panel to examine the sources, use and interpretation of intelligence relating to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The President's action addresses a months long effort by partisan Democrats to diminish the liberation of Iraq by calling into question the motives and actions of administration officials that drove that liberation.
There is a compelling argument for the examination of intelligence methods and practices, and a panel may well be the proper tool for the task. John McCain, who is a member of the panel, has made such a case. The Democrats, however, have not made the argument in compelling terms. Instead, they have argued for the creation of a panel from an obvious partisan perspective, emphasizing their belief that the President and his administration purposely lied to the American people in order to get the United States into a war with Iraq.
It is characteristic of Democrat politicians to use panels and commissions selectively and for partisan purposes. Curiously, the Democrats are not calling for a panel to inquire into their collusion with liberal special interest groups to prevent confirmation of a number the President's judicial nominations. This collusion, as documented by Byron York on National Review Online among others, included delaying confirmation proceedings for certain nominees to prevent the nominees from being seated in time to hear certain cases. One example involved Senator Kennedy (sometimes referred to as the 'conscience of the Democrats'" and the University of Michigan affirmative action case. The Democrats have requested an inquiry into the matter, not to examine their own improprieties, but to determine how memos revealing their improprieties came into the hands of Republican staffers.
I was wrong about Howard Dean when I predicted his withdrawal this week. He made a 'win or out' vow this afternoon, regarding the Wisconsin primary on 17 February. It strikes me that a more important contest for him is the Washington caucus on 7 February. Washington is a liberal state, and internet savvy, a combination that was supposed to bode well for Dean. If he loses fails to win in Washington, and finishes poorly in the other states that precede Wisconsin (Michigan, Maine, Tennessee, Virginia, D.C., and Nevada), not only will the wind be against his sails, he'll lack men to man the oars.
The controversial Super Bowl half time show on Sunday has driven it's actors and sponsors to a game of finger pointing. The corporate parties, Viacom, CBS, MTV and the NFL, all stated that they were surprised by the incident. Yesterday, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake described the exposure of Jackson's breast as an 'accident'. Today, however, Jackson came clean, admitting to planning the incident in advance. One would be hard pressed to explain how advance planning could occur without Timberlake's participation.
In a demonstration of the entertainment industry's moral obtuseness (as if a demonstration were necessary), CBS announced that Jackson will present and Timberlake will perform during the broadcast of the annual Grammy Awards celebration on Sunday. CBS said today, "...it [will] air the Grammys with a longer tape-delay so that network censors [can] edit any crude language or behavior from the telecast". Censoring lascivious behavior does not address the issues behind the behavior. In fact, the CBS plan proves that networks aren't capable of self-policing.
A firm hand from the FCC is needed. In this case, all corporate parties should be fined, and Jackson and Timberlake should be banned from the public airwaves for a year.
John Kerry enters the Presidential primaries today in pole position. Kerry will win every state but South Carolina and will, in the week to come, sharpen his arguments against John Edward's candidacy. Edwards will carry South Carolina and will spin the victory as proof of his campaign's momentum. It will be interesting to see whether Edwards takes a more combative approach to campaigning against Kerry in what, tomorrow, will be a two horse race.
In the meantime, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Wesley Clark will battle for the ignominious third place. By weeks end, Lieberman, Clark and Kucinech will withdraw. Lieberman's message will be sorely missed and the Democrat party would do well to ponder it as the primaries progress. Dean will straggle into the next round, leveraging his fading campaign network to validate a claim on the keynote address at the Democrat Convention.
Al Sharpton has no intention of winning, and no acumen for the job. His is a campaign of self-promotion and race baiting. The former, because every day in the national spotlight increases his power over black America, and the latter because he has nothing else to say.
An excellent match, in play until the final seconds and pitting superb teams known for playing together rather than showboating, was upstaged by the inexcusable smut that passed for commercials and a half time show in the Super Bowl yesterday. I watched the game with friends at an annual party. We were adults, teenagers, children and toddlers gathered to celebrate the season finale of what National Football League (NFL) marketers like to refer to as the American pastime. It was shameful, therefore, to see that CBS and the NFL had segmented 'family entertainment' out of their target audience. The combination of commercials dependent on toilet humor, songs with indecipherable lyrics and dancing laden with explicit sexuality left no room for young viewers or serious adults.
I dislike half time shows as a rule, featuring as they so often do the bottom feeders of popular culture. This half time show proved my point- a carnival of freaks relying on lip synching, and sexual innuendo for lack of real talent. That the performers couldn't sing was the just the beginning; their voice-overs were muddied by the stadium sound system- what to do if not fall back on dancing, groin grasping and public indecency. It is silly to expect adult behavior from mindless arrogant pop celebrities. It is not unreasonable to expect sound judgment and responsibility from the corporations that hired them. Viacom, CBS, MTV and the NFL are responsible for broadcasting pornography to a national audience during THE prime viewing hours. They should be rebuked by citizens and the FCC, and they should pay a price in a language they understand... big money.