Manipulating Rummy

OK, so let's see a right-wingers condensed ersion of what Rummy said.

That's "version".

ok:
"Rumsfeld explains to critics why terrorist cannot be ignored"
or"Rumsfeld presents some challenging questions about the response to worldwide terrorism.
or "Rumsfeld challenges critics to consider the effects of appeasing terrorists"
or "Rumsfeld challenges critics to give their heads a collective shake"

how about "Rumsfeld told us all to not pull a Chamberlain"

I'm glad you cleared that up Iberia,I thought you meant erosion.;>)

You show me in this supposedly accurate text exactly where he makes any direct accusations.He simply doesn't.
You would do well to seriously consider the answers to his questions.

Using the 'multiple leading question' method to make a point is a characteristic of the Iranian Debater.

Methinks Rummy is start to learn a thing or 2 at how the Islamists are so good at inciting militant fervor.

If only Bush could get his act together to do it the same way...Hmmmmmmmmm

Actually, who gives a rats ass anyways. The MSM has been spinning news since the days before the Magna Carta. Seems that conservatives are only now beginning to catch on.

By Behrooz Bahbudi and Walid Phares

The Washington Post

Because for 11 years years, the American public wasn’t informed about the threat that lead to September 11 and because the classrooms and newsrooms of the United States were not educated enough about the global threat of “Jihadism,” we feel it is incumbent on individual citizens to educate themselves about this danger and mobilize to prevent a Future Jihad looming around the world and at home. It is important that American citizens understand who the “Jihadists” are, what they want to achieve, and how they are proceeding. Without this knowledge, the American public will be unable to be part of the political debate about national security and the War on Terror. And if deprived from the support of an informed public, the US Government, now and in the future, cannot sustain difficult decisions pertaining to the defeat of the Terrorist enemy.

The ideology of the Terrorists: Jihadism

American and other democratic societies around the world, including Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and other, have been subjected to an international ideological campaign by the ”Jihadists” who aim to bring about a worldwide domination, that is the creation of a totalitarian global regime, similar to the Taliban. Their ideology opposes Democracy, Pluralism, Secularism, and is a direct threat to Peace.

“Jihadism” rejects international law as we know it, the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most governments around the world, women’s rights as agreed on in modern times, free arts and expression, and any interpretation of the universe, history, and values other than their own. “Jihadism” discriminates against all humans who do not abide by their vision. It calls them “Kuffars” (Infidels). This ideology prescribes violence against the “Infidels” should they be Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims or others; it calls for a global warfare against all who oppose them; and it terms this war “Jihad”. Hence, this ideology, in its various forms and expressions, is against international law and should be banned by the international community.

Jihadists: The Two Forces

There are two major “trees” of Jihadism: The Salafists and the Khumeinists. The Salafists, influenced by the radical Wahabis and the “Muslim Brotherhood” call for the removal of the current Arab and Muslim Governments and their replacement by a worldwide power they call “Caliphate.” The Salafist movement produced al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world and identifies itself as “The International Salafi Jihadi Movement.” It is omnipresent in the Muslim world and has a significant presence inside democracies worldwide. The Salafi Jihadists established the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This was the model they wished to multiply around the globe. The Khumeinists are the Jihadist followers of the teachings of Iranian Ayatollah Ruhallah Khumeini. They have established what they call an “Islamic Republic” in Iran and have funded movements, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Iranian Regime oppresses its own peoples and seeks regional and world expansion through Terrorism and Nuclear threat.

Axis of Jihadism

Each of the two “Jihadi” blocs has its own strategy and area of action: al Qaeda and the Salafists have infiltrated many countries and penetrated some government institutions in the Muslim world. They have also established cells within Western and other democracies. The Khumeinist Jihadists have full control of Iran’s regime and created an axis of terror in the Middle East, including the Baathist regime of Syria and Hezbollah. Both powers aim at crumbling America, undermining democracies and repressing freedoms in the Arab and Muslim world. Although with different long-term goals, the Jihadi Salafists and Khumeinists have converging interests against common enemies: democracies. In many places and on different occasions the two blocs of Jihadism have established interim alliances: the regimes in Iran, Syria and Sudan and the organizations of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jemaa Islamiya, and many others have cooperated: against democracies and civil societies, they have formed an axis of Jihadism. This is what the American public and civil societies around the world are up against since the 1990s. The victims of Jihadism belong to all ethnicities and religions: from the Muslim Sunni civilians in Algeria, the black Africans in Sudan, the Copts of Egypt, Shiites and Kurds of Iraq, Christians and others in Lebanon, innocents in Indonesia, Iran, to the societies of Russia, Argentina, India, Europe and the United States.

In short, humanity is under attack by Jihadism. The American people must learn more about the ideological movement that is waging war against them. The American public must ask the U.S. Congress to investigate Jihadism.

Dr Behrooz Behbudi President, Global Unity Partnership Born in Tehran, US Citizen, Educated in Iran, Australia, Canada and the US Businessman, Advocate for Democracy in the Greater Middle East .

Dr Walid Phares Senior fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Professor of Middle East Studies.

The Washington Post August 30, 2006 - Page A16

I think I am now addicted to smalldeadanimals.com, forget the rest, this place is the best!

Because just like "Condensing" version to ersion, and than "condensing" Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense to Rummy.

It's not condensing anything, it's changing it, so you get total horseshit delivered by a sneerng leftard with a duplicious agenda like the AP's ongoing stack of lies.

Or you could report what he said
Why "condense" anything he said ?

Speaking of manipulating rummy I'd like to pay homage to the greatest gin rummy player of all time, Stu "The Kid" Ungar. Because some of my favourite gin rummy players are Jewish ;-) Anyhow, Stu Ungar was to gin rummy what I am to factually accurate blog commentary. From Wikipedia:

Stuart Errol "The Kid" Ungar (September 8, 1953 - November 22, 1998) was a professional poker and gin rummy player, considered to be among the best in history at both games.

Stu Ungar was born to Jewish parents and raised on Manhattan's Lower East Side. His father, Isadore ("Ido") Ungar, was a bookie, exposing Stu to gambling at a young age. Despite Ido's attempts to keep his son from gambling, Stu began playing tournament gin and quickly made a name for himself.

One of the reasons Ungar eventually took up poker exclusively was because gin action had dried up because of his reputation. Ungar virtually destroyed anyone who challenged him in a gin match including a professional widely regarded as the best gin player of Ungar's generation, Harry "Yonkie" Stein. Ungar reportedly beat Stein so badly in a high stakes gin match that Stein dropped out of sight in gin circles and stopped playing professionally.

After beating Stein and several other top gin professionals, Ungar was a marked man. Nobody wanted to play him in a gin match because of his superior skill. In the hopes of generating more action for himself, Ungar began offering potential gin opponents handicaps to even the playing field. He was known to let his opponent look at the last card in the deck, offer rebates to defeated opponents and always play each hand in the dealer position, all of which put him at a decisive disadvantage.

One story Ungar recalled was when a known cheater at gin called to set up a match with him. Ungar knew the man was a cheater as well but agreed to play him for money anyway. During the match, Ungar's bodyguard (sent by his financial backers because in those days the backers of a losing player at times assaulted or killed a winning player and took their money back) noticed the man was cheating. The bodyguard pulled Ungar aside and was irate while telling him. Ungar calmly told the bodyguard "I know he's cheating. Don't worry. I'll beat him anyway", and he did.

At the time Ungar moved to Las Vegas, gin was still popular in tournament format, much like heads up poker tournaments. Ungar won or finished high in so many gin tournaments that several casinos asked him to not play in them because many players said they would not enter if they knew Ungar was playing. Ungar later said in his biography that he loved seeing his opponent slowly break down over the course of a match, realizing he could not win and eventually get a look of desperation on his face. "It was fucking beautiful" he noted.

Though he is more well known for his poker accomplishments, Ungar regarded himself as a better gin rummy player, once stating, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better no limit hold 'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stu_Unger

Come on, we can all read between the lines, can't we? I don't mind analysis with the news if it's reasonably accurate. Was the AP conclusion really that far off from what Rumsfeld actually said? He talked about a new type of fascism arising, and he warned of the dangers of appeasement, ergo... He didn't address Iraq war critics specifically, but any fool has a good idea about who he was talking to. But if Rumsfeld had directly accused war critics of appeasing fascism, would you consider that a bad thing? A lot of people here do that every day. If the AP actually strengthened his message, hawks should be happy about that.

FREE said "how about "Rumsfeld told us all to not pull a Chamberlain""

That's the best one. As a matter of fact, Rumsfeld's comment and that summation are the perfect place to start with the serious dialogue that our society has to start having with itself.

I would say that Rumsfeld did not go far enough in making the comparison with what we face today versus what we have seen throughout the last 100 years when democracies have tried to appease dictators or those who would support them.

What we face today is far more distressing.

At least Hitler was afraid of what England and France might do. He had planned to back down if either moved against his when he militarized the Rhineland. Only when they didn't do anything (the birth of modern appeasement) did he become emboldened to start moving on Czechoslovakia, and then Poland.

But our current enemy already takes western democracies for fools who have no motivation to do anything. They have studied us well and they know that they can make outrageous demands and do horrific acts and we will continue to try to "understand" them and their "legitimate grievances". (Funny, didn't Chamberlain use the same terms to describe how Hitler should have been dealt with?) If anyone in the west does step up to try and make a stand, they know that they only have to cry "racist" or "Islamophobe" and we will quickly step back. They do it all the time. And we predictably oblige. They watch our news. They know that western politicians take a hit when they stand against any Muslim state. In short, they feel they can count on us being hamstringed.

If anyone doubts this, I encourage you to talk to any first-generation Canadians who are from Eastern Europe or the Middle East (including Israel). Ask them if they would agree that the west is famous for talking big and almost never acting. I'd be shocked if you found anyone who would disagree with that statement. That's their prejudice against us...but they are right far more often than wrong.

So, dear left-wing naysayers, Rumsfeld was trying to engage us into seriously thinking and discussing these very real issues. You may not agree with him (even though there is not a single case in history where an agressor has been appeased into submission), but you could at least consider it.

The "condensed" versions did not capture that essence at all. They clearly tried to simply gloss over it with a "Rumsfeld is ticked at his critics...yadda, yadda, yadda" kind of presentation. That's not giving the "Reader's Digest" version...it's the Pravda version.

That's why we are annoyed. That should be very understandable.

jaymeister...what Rummy actually said is very important, neede to be said and heard. The condensation is a boring read.It doesn't strengthen what he said.

What happened to the adage, "You report,I decide." Why do we have to listen to a 'reporter' summarize what we just saw? In summarize I mean give their or the broadcasters slanted analisis. That is what the newspaper columnist is for. Or the talkshow host on radio or television. You know going in what side of the fence their on. You shouldn't have to ponder that from a report/reporter.

To over simplify. The West only needs to ask various groups like the people of Lebanon if they prefer to live a life without fear of bombing. Vast numbers do hate the Hez.

If the majority of people choose to no longer support Hezbollah and instead support the legitimate government of Lebanon, then the West should offer support and encouragement.

The people of Iraq voted for a bomb free life, but three warring factions have things to work out. Thus the delay.

Lebanon is not so fractious and so could easily swing to local government support and away from Hezbollah.

Only the powerful brain-washing and propaganda from Iran agent Naswralla keeps them thinking the Hez holds any promise.

Clearly Labanon is being used as a punching bag for blows that should go direct to Iran. = TG

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/latestnews.html

OT: Sorry but, There are reports of a home burning on Douglas Creek Land Caledonia..... Things are heating up.

lberia,

Here's a crazy idea,

how bout just quoting his actual words, in context.

Talk about making, rather than reporting, news.

Associated Press sort of ' faux-shaping ' their story for public consumption.
Like Christina Lawand at CBC, eh?

Perish the thought, Rumsfeld refuses to be nuanced. It's why he is loathed by the sniveling weasels in the MSM. Direct. Logical. Action oriented. And, God forbid emitting the scent of male testosterone. And, even if he is misquoted as calling them "Nazi appeasers", he is still correct. If this was the 1930's, they are.

Seems that conservatives are only now beginning to catch on

We are beginning to catch on? Get a grip. Your lefty brethren are clueless sheeple. The fools drink the MSM Kool-aid and spew it back en mass.

how about POGO "we have found the enemy and he is us"

Quoting his actual words would be ideal, but that is unlikely to happen since time and/or space costs the MSM money.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease 'a new type of fascism.'"

vs. (for example)

"Rumsfeld challenges critics to consider the effects of appeasing terrorists."

While the tone might be different, the message is the same. This tone is not surprising considering how most of the media now feel like they were used after supporting Bush & Co. so slavishly for the first few years after 9/11: "Mission accomplished! "WMD!" "Axis of Evil!" etc. Promoting propaganda as news. Five years after "The Battle for Democracy" began, people are still being told to "be afraid of the terrorists" and "we must take your rights away to make you safer" by Bush and his government.

Compared to the degree of unquestioning sycophancy the MSM displayed then, the negativity displayed in this article is quite mild. It seems that some people here suffer from Right Wing New York Times Syndrome, as demonstrated on the link posted on SDA on 22 August.

"You show me in this supposedly accurate text exactly where he makes any direct accusations.He simply doesn't.
You would do well to seriously consider the answers to his questions."

Posted by: Canadian Observer

How about this, a back handed accusation if not a direct one:

"But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons."

At 5:36pm on August 30, Kate posted:

And what the Associated Press says Rumsfeld said:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

Unfortunately, as of 7:10am on August 30, the AP report said no such thing, if you refer to the link to the story within McQ's blog that Kate linked to. Kate leaves the impression that the text cited above is currently being reported by the AP, when it had not been in the text of their story for at least ten hours. That is misleading. (And quarelling over verb tense is not nitpicking, as we recall from the whole Clinton thing about the meaning of the word "is".) To paraphrase Kate, the McQ blog account was disseminated without question, and without having even looked at the actual AP report at the time this item was posted on SDA.

It is very plausible that the AP writer covering the speech, attempting to meet his deadline, wrote his first impressions of it. Then, after sober second thought, edited his story, as most news stories are edited in later editions. Either that, or an AP editor did a re-write to take out the inferences. In the end, the AP fell back into their role as government stenographer. And you probably heard it here first.

Just heard CNN Ander-son of Gloria called Rumsfeld's speech "Fighting Words"

I think this latest CNN blunder tells us what's really going on in newsrooms. That's the one where their commentator scooted off to the bathroom for girlie talk while President Bush was speaking, with her wireless mike still attached and live. For about a minute no one in the CNN newsroom was even listening to her chatter coming in over the President because no one was listening the Bush.

Journalists report these speeches badly, in part, because they're not listening. They simply make things up in fitting with their rather quirky world view. And they know that other journalists (other than Fox and bloggers) aren't going to point out their errors, because practically everyone is functioning poorly.

--Mike Perry, Seattle

Here's the most pathetic Rummy smear of all time:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/30/video-olbermanns-very-special-commentary/

lberia,

Yawn ... try to bring up at least last years idiot comments.

Off Topic, PASSPORT APPLICATION "Transparent"?

Canada Post "precautions" with Birth Certificates when I, and many others, were applying for a new Passport.

All forms, with name, address, pictures, old passport, ect were placed in a "baggie" type of transparent envelope to be sent off to who-knows-where. The Birth Certificate Card (to be returned to owner)was then PURPOSEFULLY placed FACE OUTWARD in the Baggie. If an easy to identify label is the reason, why on Earth use a sensitive, highly sought after Birth Certificate. How many eyes would see Lord knows how many BCs everyday ??

"The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet."

He is however the new Chamberlain.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/

Some people say... that phrase "some people say" is worn out. We need more uncut video on the news, and less blab from reporters with an agenda to defend the Bush administration.

Ural:

How the hell would I know what you said last year.

The old excuse, "It's too expensive to print his comments more fully," is so lame! The AP story is online, how expensive is it to add a couple of paragraphs on the internet? Also, if you look at newspapers even from only 15 years ago you'll find lengthy quotations in news "reports", and there used to be about a 1/2 page in the Globe & Mail for important lengthy quotations from parliament. It's difficult to believe that costs per word have increased that much!

Bob,

Not that it matters but... Stu Unger was a severe cocaine addict, a big loser at sports betting and like Ricky from the Trailer Park Boys was usually stone cold broke 48 hours after a big score. Despite all his winning he almost always had to be bank-rolled for tournaments because he was a degenerate gambler.

How do you get a poker player off your front porch...pay him for the pizza.

Bob,

Not that it matters but... Stu Unger was a severe cocaine addict, a big loser at sports betting and like Ricky from the Trailer Park Boys was usually stone cold broke 48 hours after a big score. Despite all his winning he almost always had to be bank-rolled for tournaments because he was a degenerate gambler.

How do you get a poker player off your front porch...pay him for the pizza.

Yes indeed..Even in his apparent zeal to make Rumsfeldt's speech into a diatribe against left wing stupidity, Burns actually gets to the point on several issues.
Refusal to acknowledge the nature of the Islamofascist threat is akin to the pre WWII appeasement of Nazi Germany by Europeans (mainly).
The left are suffering from moral and intellectual confusion.

Unfortunately I doubt if Burns or many of his readers will see the point(s).

USS Neverdock has more on this topic...."NYT and Olberman caught lying ober Rumsfeld."

Why do journalists "summarize" people's speeches and ideas and "tell us" what to think?

Here's why: try reading THIS over your morning coffee. It's just a simple experiment.

Here are just five speeches -- two from President Bush, two from Prime Minister Harper, and a pretty good one from Clarence Thomas.

Here's what a speech looks like without the MSM "filter."

Have fun! Hope you're not busy for the next little while.

--------------
Thank you all so much. Thank you, Judge Bell for your kind words, and I also thank you for all the kind things you've done for me in my life, especially over the last three or four years. I -- This is a real pleasure to be here. I didn't thing so many people would be interested in what I had to say. There isn't that great a demand for my opinions.

As you all can see, I kinda had to hobble up here. I had decided to play basketball with my law clerks and snapped my Achilles tendon. If that wasn't bad enough, I also tore it. But I was looking around for some precedent as to what happens to people after they've injured their Achilles tendon, and in looking I found that some very good things happen. Dominique Wilkins is the second leading scorer in the NBA. And he also makes several million dollars a year, so I may be changing jobs after this heals.

It's wonderful to be in Macon, George. I grew up on the music of James Brown. I think he was born here and I'm sure he always hails from Augusta. And, of course, there's Little Richard who did a little bit of everything. He's quite an entertainer. I had a young mother. That's why I listened to all these things. I was a little kid. And, of course, when I went off to school Otis Redding was hot -- "(Sittin' on) the Dock of the Bay." So, I am very pleased to be in the hometown of -- Lena Horne, of course, is from here and there are all sorts of other wonderful people. I just happen to remember those, and people I think so well of.

It is good to be back in Georgia. It's good to be back in my home state. I look forward to this day -- have looked forward for a long time. I thank, again, Judge Bell and my dear friend Larry Thompson for their role in my presence here today. Larry and I met -- as Judge Bell alluded to -- we met some 19 years ago in a Bar Review course, while preparing for the Missouri Bar. That was in the summer of 1974. And we went on to work together in the Law Department of Monsanto Company in St. Louis. I'd also like to thank Dean Shelton for inviting me and all the patience he had in working out with his wonderful staff the details here today -- and the alumni association.

Since going on the Court, I have not had the opportunity to give many speeches, in part because during the Court term there never seems to be enough time. However, during my years in the Executive Branch, I spoke quite a bit. In fact, during my preparations for my last confirmation, one friend, after learning that I had given more than 100 copies of my printed speeches to the Senate Judiciary Committee for their review, asked why I had given so many speeches. I quickly assured him that the reason I didn't give more speeches during my tenure was that I ran out of time and more importantly ran out of people willing to listen.

Seriously, after my brief tenure as a federal judge -- or seriously, my brief tenure as a federal judge, with the exception of a brief interruption for my confirmation as Associate Justice -- has been a rewarding and fulfilling experience. Throughout my year and a half on the Court, I have found the working relationship with my fellow Justices and their clerks to be courteous and kind. For my first day on the bench I found that, regardless of my junior status, I was treated with the same respect as Justices who had been there for 20 and 30 years -- well, maybe with the possible exception of the Chief Justice, to whom everyone is especially nice. And that's because he handles all the Opinion assignments.

But kidding aside, the cases we decide are usually very difficult and, of course, there are times when the disagreement among the Justices is intense. But out of respect for ourselves, and for the positions we hold, we take care to remain civil and respectful to each other. That is not to say that in some Opinions we aren't tough on the others' legal views and interpretations. This does not carry, however, into the Court dining room or into the hallways in the form of disrespect or incivility. So I've settled into Court life, and despite what you may have heard, I am very happy with the challenges of the work and the friendship of my colleagues.

Mercer University and Mercer Law School played important roles in my dreams to educate myself and ultimately to become a lawyer. I can still remember going to the Savannah Public Library to read catalogues about schools, schools that I might have an opportunity to attend. For a variety of reasons, I kept coming back to Mercer. This institution helped me to keep a dream alive, and to keep a dream alive in a young black kid who spent hours wondering about the possibilities that lay ahead. But never in my wildest dream would I have thought that I would be an invited speaker here, and, as a Supreme Court Justice no less.

Yet, there's another reason why this day is a special one, beyond of course your wonderful hospitality and the importance of this Law Day Celebration. This occasion gives me the chance to say, "Thank you." I will never be able to express how much the support of my fellow Georgians meant to my family and me during those bleak days in the summer and fall of 1991.

Since I have been somewhat of a Washington area nomad before my four previous nominations, I have been identified as Clarence Thomas of Missouri, of Maryland, or of Virginia; but for my Supreme Court nomination, I asked President Bush to nominate me as Clarence Thomas of Georgia. When he mentioned my Georgia roots as he announced my nomination in Kennebunkport, I felt immensely proud. To me, it symbolized my coming home. And as that inglorious summer wore on, home came to me in the form of letters, cards, calls, prayers, flowers. And today, as I stand here, I know that it was all worth it.

It seems so long ago that I left for the first time. That was in the fall of 1967. I had just graduated from high school seminary and was on way to college seminary in Missouri. I took the "Nancy Hank"¹ -- some of you may remember the "Nancy Hank" -- from Savannah to Atlanta; then flew from Atlanta to Kansas City, Missouri, my first airplane flight; then on to Conception Junction, Missouri. (Sure many of you've been there.) Those were turbulent times in 1967, in Georgia, across the country, and, of course, across the South. Intolerance and bigotry still defined the relationship between the races.

Of course, we all have our stories to tell about how we were treated or mistreated in those difficult days. And from time to time I've speculated that racial attitudes had still not changed sufficiently for me to return to my home state to practice law after law school. I would certainly have liked to come back, if for no other reason, after spending six years in law school -- or in six years in college and law school in the Northeast, I was dying for some decent southern cooking on a regular basis. Seriously, I allude to this possibility of discrimination, not as an indictment of anyone or to place blame, but only to note that racial prejudice permeated all of our lives in one way or another. Only to that extent was it nondiscriminatory.

Growing up in the South, we were never far removed from prevailing prejudices. We lived with them on a daily basis: as children, when we couldn't swim in most public pools; as adults, when we were looking for work or trying to rent an apartment. The prejudice and racial hatred that drove our national consciousness has complex and, to a certain degree, undiscoverable roots. But one of its consequences was the lack of civility toward members of my race.

I focus on this undignified, uncivil treatment so many of us suffered because of this hardship -- because in this hardship, there is wisdom. For if we have not learned of the tragedy and damage caused by mistreating others, then so much of that terrible struggle was in vain. And although, we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't admit that racial stereotypes still linger in 1993, I believe we all have benefited from the struggles of those years.

Today, I'm here to share my thoughts about a principle that seems to be falling out of fashion these days: civility. For if we have learned anything from the hardship, it is that no good can ever come of treating others badly, whether on account of their race, their religion, or gender.

As the customs, practices, and laws governing the relations between the race[s] changed, we feared the backlash of incivility, if not outright lawlessness that would follow. We saw how so many resisted change for the good. This was so in no small part because there's comfort in the extant stereotypes and prejudices. It is far easier to hold fast to generalizations, rather than to take the time and make the effort to judge people on an individual basis.

Thus, for years following the civil rights gains of the 60's, we still found ourselves wondering if the country truly was ready to reject what the Supreme Court had told us in the Dred Scott decision -- that the negro had no rights that needed to be respected.

But even as the harsh realities of inter-racial relations settled over us, for many, including myself, the intra-racial fear -- sphere in which we lived stood in stark contrast. Racial stereotypes of blacks and whites were dismissed out of hands as our families, teachers, and neighbors told us to treat others not as we are treated by them, but rather as we wish ourselves to be treated by them.

As the outside world so often operated beyond rules of civility and dignity, as it held fast to prejudice, we did our best to retain our sense of fairness in order that unfairness in practice did not undermine fairness in principle. In our house, no one was allowed to use racial slurs to describe whites, even while it was uncommon for blacks -- or was not uncommon for blacks to be degraded by racial epithets. Everyone was to be treated with respect regardless of how disrespectfully we were treated.

The notion of civility does not submit easily to definition. To pardon a phrase, it's sort of a "we know it when we see it" phenomenon. Most of us know when we are treated rudely, disrespectfully, or improperly. We also know in our hearts when we treat others uncivilly. Perhaps with all the problems in the world today, this might not seem very important. In this country, crime and poverty still plague us. In Bosnia, we see the attempted extermination of an entire people. Yet, notions of fair play, civility, and respect for the inherent worth of another person's ideas, are all values that have been vital to the continued success of this country, and essential tools which our leaders must bring to any domestic or international crisis.

If we seem to have gotten off course, we might do well to start at ground zero -- right at the beginning. On an individual basis, rules of personal conduct allow us to confront difficulties constructively, and they provide guardrails down what is an often dangerous and precarious road of life. These guardrails, of course, kept us well within the bounds of the criminal laws. My grandfather made it very clear that a man did not keep his good name merely by not breaking the criminal law. Our family laws required much more of us and did not permit us to wander into that gray zone of impropriety not governed by the criminal law. So, only -- not only were we not to do bad things or engage in mischief, we were not to associate with those who did, because as my grandparents would say, "They were up to no good." Somehow, with the benefit of little formal education, my grandparents recognized the inexorable downward spiral of conduct outside the guardrails: If you lie, you will cheat; if you cheat, you will steal; if you steal, you will kill.

Along these lines, I still remember the -- this now amusing memory -- or I have this now amusing memory of crossing East Henry Street at the corner of East Broad. Since Henry Street was one-way and particularly busy, we had been told time and time again not to cross against the light. But as grammar school kids, we did anyway. Well, on one of those occasions a neighbor, Miss Gertrude, passed by on a bus. Her siren-like voice pierced the air, rising above the din of traffic, and she yelled, "I'm gonna tell Teenie." Teenie [sp?] is my grandmother. This meant major trouble. True to her word, as usual, she told. Before he delivered the punishment, our grandfather gave us the usual refrain, "This hurts me worse than it hurts you." Even now, that is hard for me to believe.

Yes, we were, as they said, to be "mannerable" -- period. We did not dare walk the street -- or walk down the street without saying "Good morning" to Miss Gladys, Miss Moriah, Miss Beck, and especially Miss Gertrude -- the latter for obvious reasons. We would never think of addressing an adult only by his or her first name, or as the adults would say, without a "handle" on that name. We would never refuse to make a trip to the store for an adult who asked. We knew that we were not to litter or damage the property of another, regardless of how much the property was worth.

And I remember the "do's" maybe even better than I remember the "don't's" -- church on Sunday; tend to property on Saturday; wash the car; cut the grass; polish your shoes. And all of us, especially my brother and I, were expected to work. My grandfather imposed a rule that seemed pretty harsh: If you don't work, you don't eat. And he meant it. Needless to say, I liked eating, so I endured working. My grandfather also had a corollary principle or rule that revealed his soft, kind side: When you produce more than you need, you give to those who could not do for themselves -- but not to those who could. To them, you give a chance to work. It wasn't until I got older that I realized why my chores never seemed to end, because my grandfather provided me with a steady stream of work for work's sake, or better put, work to consume idleness, which he called, "The devil's workshop."

And let me tell you, even if we felt as kids that the unending work was unfair, there were no negotiations about the work or the rules. By decree my -- By -- By decree of my grandfather, my teachers and my grandmother were always right. And by decree, though not always right, he was never wrong. I still don't know what the difference is between these two rules. Regardless of how we were treated by others, we were expected to rise above our circumstances rather than becoming consumed by them or by the natural reactions that stirred within us all.

The families poorest in means were often the richest in manners. That was comforting. Resentment and other destructive passions were not free to breed in such an atmosphere. There were guardrails. While as a kid I sometimes saw this regimen as nothing more than a plot to keep me away from my training to be a pro football player, or a basketball star, as an adult I see how this nurturing of good manners and good work habits gave me the independence, discipline, and self-respect that I needed for college and my life as an adult.

Certainly, much has changed since those days. Most significantly, no longer is there government sponsored segregation. While discrimination, no doubt, still hovers about, its face does not resemble that of my youth. The mere fact that I'm here today, a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, is some indication of just how far we've come and just how much things have changed.

But sadly, although much has changed, much has not. Many of the old problems have resurfaced elsewhere in our society under rubrics -- under different rubrics and with different justifications. When I left Georgia over 25 years ago, the familiar sources of unkind treatment and incivility were just bigots. Today, ironically, a new brand of stereotypes and ad hominem assaults are surfacing across the nation's college campuses, in the national media, in Hollywood, and among the involuntarily ordained cultural elite. And who are the targets? Those who dare to question current social and cultural gimmicks; those who insist that we embrace the values that have worked and reject those that have failed us; those who dare to disagree with the latest ideological fad.

Signs of this began creeping up during my college years. Back then, wearing an Afro hairstyle was in vogue. After -- Often I heard it said you weren't really black if you didn't wear an Afro. Though I occasionally wore my hair in this style, I certainly didn't define myself through my barber. This conformist mindset struck me as particularly incredible, since we had barely freed ourselves from being judged by others on the basis of our skin. My reaction to this was to leave my hair uncombed for most of my college career. I'm still not sure if anyone knew the difference.

Perhaps this seems funny now, but it did portend greater and more serious stereotypical dictates. Later in life I would be told that I did not "think black," by white critics no less. During the 1980's I watched with shock and dismay how friends of mine were treated for merely disagreeing with what my friend Tom Sowell referred to as "The New Orthodoxy." As a black person, straying from the tenets of this orthodoxy meant that you were a traitor to your race. You were not a "real black" and you would be forced to pay for your ideological trespass, often through systematic character assassination -- the modern day version of the old public floggings. Just a few of the victims were Clarence Pendleton, Walter Williams, or Jay Parker, all friends of mine -- the late Clarence Pendleton.

Undoubtedly, there are untold numbers of others who have been made to pay the same high price for their ideas. Instead of seeing signs on public doors saying, "No Coloreds Allowed," the signs I saw were "No Nonconforming Ideas Allowed!" This tack of damning the dissenter by skewering his character, rather than by substantively criticizing his views, occurs while unyielding praise is heaped on those who write, speak, and think the language of the New Orthodoxy. Their assertions go unchallenged, untested, and then are passed on to our children as truisms. The ultimate effect is that many cower in fear of speaking out publicly on certain issues or policies due to the unrelenting, personal attacks that are likely to follow.

This is what I refer to as "The New Intolerance." It gives me a feeling of deja vu, or as Yogi Berra would add, "deja vu all over again." In many ways, it is just the same old thing we've seen before, just as invidious and perhaps more pervasive than the incivility black Americans suffered throughout much of this century. Its perniciousness lies in its masquerade. Cleverly the purveyors of the New Intolerance claim legitimacy in the name of fostering tolerance, sensitivity, or a sense of community. Yet, in my experience these popular buzz words are merely trotted out as justifications in an attempt to intimidate and silence those who dare to question popular political, social, or economic fads.

To defend this turf from criticisms, competing ideas and points of views are ignored and the jugular of the dissenter vengefully slashed at. Does a man instantaneously become insensitive or a dupe or an Uncle Tom because he happens to disagree with the policy of Affirmative Action? Is it any more justified to hurl invectives at him for what he believes than to call him names for the color of his skin? In both instances, a man's reputation is disparaged and his name sullied. In neither instance is he treated as an individual. Is it really any more laudable to make a man afraid to express his views than it is to make him ashamed for the color of his skin? Does it make sense to criticize someone who says, "Blacks look alike," then praise someone who says that "All blacks should think alike?"

One of the things I looked forward to when I first went to Washington was the opportunity to debate and discuss difficult issues with those who had competing ideas. The closest I came to this environment were my dealings with my personal staff during my days as chairman of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. They challenged me. We debated. We disagreed. We saw issues in ways we hadn't seen them before. The unfettered exchanges were liberating.

When I arrived in Washington, I just assumed that although the legitimacy of a person['s] ideas were fair game, his character was not. So you can imagine how surprised and disappointed I was to find that the reverse was true. Many issues were off limits, but ad hominem attacks were not. Indeed, they were in vogue. Those who had the temerity to broach these subjects and -- heaven forbid -- actually express a view contrary to The New Orthodoxy were summarily dismissed as "sellouts" or "insensitive."

This was especially true for those of us who happened to be black. As soon as I began working in the Reagan Administration, I was quickly and cavalierly described as an "ultraconservative." Why? Because I dared to follow the final counsel of my -- that my grandfather gave some 10 years ago. I stood up for what I believed in and for what he taught me. Later I would be called worse things. Few flinched at the hypocrisy of it all. And for those who had the misfortune of not being black, well they were racist, bigots, fascists, or Neanderthals. I am still waiting to here the cries of insensitivity about the casual use of these epithets. The silence is deafening.

It is not surprising that this New Intolerance has a devastating, chilling effect. I cannot tell you how many people have approached me in airports, restaurants, or on the streets -- only to whisper how much they agreed with me, and about what I think, and about the need to get back to basics in this country. While it's heartening to know that there's an undercurrent of common sense running through our country today, it is saddening to know that so many are fearful of challenging the advocates of this New Intolerance.

Of course, the reluctance is understandable. Being their victim is no fun. It is no more enjoyable than it was 25 or 30 years ago -- when we feared for our safety if caught walking in the wrong neighborhood after dark. It is imperative that we recognize that where blacks were once intimidated from crossing racial boundaries, we all now fear crossing ideological boundaries, and that such intolerance and incivility that fuel both types of intimidation are reprehensible.

Just as so many worked tirelessly to end the undignified, uncivil treatment of blacks in this country, it is incumbent upon all of you to do your part in order that The New Intolerance does not succeed in stifling the free exchange of ideas. Women have the right not to agree with the feminist agenda, and not to be personally attacked for it. Blacks have the right to criticize welfare policies, and not to be lashed by the cultural elite for doing so. If you succumb to self-censorship, then the gains that we have made will be hollow. If we lose this battle, we risk finding ourselves once again judged not for our individual ideas or conduct, but only for the color of our skin or some other immutable characteristic.

Demand to be treated by your classmates and colleagues with respect and dignity, regardless of how strong the disagreement among you. Settle for nothing less than fair, civil discussions, where labels and stereotypes of any sort are rejected as harmful and counterproductive. Remind those who claim that your viewpoint is divisive or insensitive that [audio missing approx. 2 seconds] ² by nature divisive and that such divisiveness is to be harnessed by civility, not censorship. And tell them that what should really should be off limits are personal attacks on those who happen to disagree.

So this is a time for regrouping and rejuvenation. As I look out in the audience today, I see hope. When I was a brash and often angry young man -- and I was angry -- I would confide in my grandmother about my frustration and my dejection. She passed away 10 years ago today, but I can still see her looking at me with those strong, kind, sensitive eyes. She would give me her usual sage, warm advice: "Son, do your best. Be good. Be honest. And say your prayers." I would respond, "Yes, ma'am."

Perhaps we all should say, "Yes, ma'am" to her wise counsel and get on with the business of acting like we deserve to live in a free society.

Thank you.

-----------------------

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year, we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead.

You and I serve our country in a time of great consequence. During this session of Congress, we have the duty to reform domestic programs vital to our country ... and we have the opportunity to save millions of lives abroad from a terrible disease. We will work for a prosperity that is broadly shared ... and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people. In all these days of promise and days of reckoning, we can be confident. In a whirlwind of change, and hope, and peril, our faith is sure, our resolve is firm, and our union is strong.

This country has many challenges. We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents, and other generations. We will confront them with focus, and clarity, and courage. During the last two years, we have seen what can be accomplished when we work together. To lift the standards of our public schools, we achieved historic education reform – which must now be carried out in every school, and every classroom, so that every child in America can read, and learn, and succeed in life. To protect our country, we reorganized our government and created the Department of Homeland Security – which is mobilizing against the threats of a new era. To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation. To insist on integrity in American business, we passed tough reforms, and we are holding corporate criminals to account.

Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start. Tonight I ask the House and Senate to join me in the next bold steps to serve our fellow citizens. Our first goal is clear: We must have an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job. After recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, and stock market declines, our economy is recovering – yet it is not growing fast enough, or strongly enough. With unemployment rising, our Nation needs more small businesses to open, more companies to invest and expand, more employers to put up the sign that says, "Help Wanted." Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best, fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place.

I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year. And under my plan, as soon as I have signed the bill, this extra money will start showing up in workers' paychecks. Instead of gradually reducing the marriage penalty, we should do it now. Instead of slowly raising the child credit to a thousand dollars, we should send the checks to American families now. This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes – and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep – this year – an average of almost 1,100 dollars more of their own money. A family of four with an income of 40,000 dollars would see their federal income taxes fall from 1,178 dollars to 45 dollars per year. And our plan will improve the bottom line for more than 23 million small businesses.

You, the Congress, have already passed all these reductions, and promised them for future years. If this tax relief is good for Americans three, or five, or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today. We also strengthen the economy by treating investors equally in our tax laws. It is fair to tax a company's profits. It is not fair to again tax the shareholder on the same profits. To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends. Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs mean more taxpayers – and higher revenues to our government. The best way to address the deficit and move toward a balanced budget is to encourage economic growth – and to show some spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We must work together to fund only our most important priorities. I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by four percent next year – about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us: Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families. A growing economy, and a focus on essential priorities, will also be crucial to the future of Social Security. As we continue to work together to keep Social Security sound and reliable, we must offer younger workers a chance to invest in retirement accounts that they will control and they will own.

Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation – with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many people, medical care costs too much – and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care. Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy ... choose their own doctors ... and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. Instead of bureaucrats, and trial lawyers, and HMOs, we must put doctors, and nurses, and patients back in charge of American medicine.

Health care reform must begin with Medicare, because Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America. Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is. And just like you, the members of Congress, members of your staffs, and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs. My budget will commit an additional 400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Leaders of both political parties have talked for years about strengthening Medicare – I urge the members of this new Congress to act this year. To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher costs – the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued. Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care – and many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit – and I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform.

Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years. I have sent you a Healthy Forests Initiative, to help prevent the catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn away millions of acres of treasured forest.

I urge you to pass these measures, for the good of both our environment and our economy. Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step, and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about, not through endless lawsuits or command and control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car – producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom – so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation – to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Our fourth goal is to apply the compassion of America to the deepest problems of America. For so many in our country – the homeless, the fatherless, the addicted – the need is great. Yet there is power – wonder-working power – in the goodness, and idealism, and faith of the American people.

Americans are doing the work of compassion every day – visiting prisoners, providing shelter to battered women, bringing companionship to lonely seniors. These good works deserve our praise ... they deserve our personal support ... and, when appropriate, they deserve the assistance of our government. I urge you to pass both my faith-based initiative and the Citizen Service Act – to encourage acts of compassion that can transform America, one heart and one soul at a time.

Last year, I called on my fellow citizens to participate in USA Freedom Corps, which is enlisting tens of thousands of new volunteers across America. Tonight I ask Congress and the American people to focus the spirit of service and the resources of government on the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens – boys and girls trying to grow up without guidance and attention ... and children who have to go through a prison gate to be hugged by their mom or dad. I propose a 450 million dollar initiative to bring mentors to more than a million disadvantaged junior high students and children of prisoners. Government will support the training and recruiting of mentors, yet it is the men and women of America who will fill the need. One mentor, one person, can change a life forever – and I urge you to be that one person.

Another cause of hopelessness is addiction to drugs. Addiction crowds out friendship, ambition, moral conviction, and reduces all the richness of life to a single destructive desire. As a government, we are fighting illegal drugs by cutting off supplies, and reducing demand through anti-drug education programs. Yet for those already addicted, the fight against drugs is a fight for their own lives. Too many Americans in search of treatment cannot get it. So tonight I propose a new 600 million dollar program to help an additional 300,000 Americans receive treatment over the next three years.

Our Nation is blessed with recovery programs that do amazing work. One of them is found at the Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A man in the program said, "God does miracles in people's lives, and you never think it could be you." Tonight, let us bring to all Americans who struggle with drug addiction this message of hope: The miracle of recovery is possible, and it could be you. By caring for children who need mentors, and for addicted men and women who need treatment, we are building a more welcoming society – a culture that values every life. And in this work we must not overlook the weakest among us. I ask you to protect infants at the very hour of birth, and end the practice of partial-birth abortion. And because no human life should be started or ended as the object of an experiment, I ask you to set a high standard for humanity and pass a law against all human cloning.

The qualities of courage and compassion that we strive for in America also determine our conduct abroad. The American flag stands for more than our power and our interests. Our Founders dedicated this country to the cause of human dignity – the rights of every person and the possibilities of every life. This conviction leads us into the world to help the afflicted, and defend the peace, and confound the designs of evil men. In Afghanistan, we helped to liberate an oppressed people ... and we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society, and educate all their children – boys and girls. In the Middle East, we will continue to seek peace between a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine. Across the earth, America is feeding the hungry; more than 60 percent of international food aid comes as a gift from the people of the United States.

As our Nation moves troops and builds alliances to make our world safer, we must also remember our calling, as a blessed country, to make this world better. Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus – including three million children under the age of 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than four million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims – only 50,000 – are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines ... many hospitals tell [people], 'You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die.'" In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from 12,000 dollars a year to under 300 dollars a year – which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp.

Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many. We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief – a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent seven million new AIDS infections ... treat at least two million people with life-extending drugs ... and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. I ask the Congress to commit 15 billion dollars over the next five years, including nearly ten billion dollars in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.

This Nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this Nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. There are days when the American people do not hear news about the war on terror. There is never a day when I do not learn of another threat, or receive reports of operations in progress, or give an order in this global war against a scattered network of killers. The war goes on, and we are winning. To date we have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September 11th attacks ... the chief of al-Qaida operations in the Persian Gulf who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole ... an al-Qaida operations chief from Southeast Asia ... a former director of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan ... a key al-Qaida operative in Europe ... and a major al-Qaida leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. They are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies.

We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen ... the American embassy in Singapore ... a Saudi military base ... and ships in the straits of Hormuz, and the straits of Gibraltar. We have broken al-Qaida cells in Hamburg, and Milan, and Madrid, and London, and Paris – as well as Buffalo, New York. We have the terrorists on the run, and we are keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. As we fight this war, we will remember where it began – here, in our own country. This government is taking unprecedented measures to protect our people and defend our homeland. We have intensified security at the borders and ports of entry ... posted more than 50,000 newly trained federal screeners in airports ... begun inoculating troops and first responders against smallpox ... and are deploying the Nation's first early warning network of sensors to detect biological attack. And this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this Nation against ballistic missiles.

I thank the Congress for supporting these measures. I ask you tonight to add to our future security with a major research and production effort to guard our people against bio-terrorism, called Project Bioshield. The budget I send you will propose almost six billion dollars to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. We must assume that our enemies would use these diseases as weapons, and we must act before the dangers are upon us.

Since September 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The FBI is improving its ability to analyze intelligence, and transforming itself to meet new threats. And tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, Central Intelligence, Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect our citizens.
Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this Nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men – free people will set the course of history.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror ... the gravest danger facing America and the world ... is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to their terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation. This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations ... built armies and arsenals ... and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this Nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility.

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter, and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We are strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We are working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all of these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process – it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this Nation does not depend on the decisions of others. Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty, human rights, and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny – and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

On the Korean peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that the regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. America is working with the countries of the region – South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia – to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. The North Korean regime will find respect in the world, and revival for its people, only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions.

Our Nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula, and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression ... with ties to terrorism ... with great potential wealth ... will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons – not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons ... lay those weapons out for the world to see ... and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax – enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin – enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the UN inspectors – sanitizing inspection sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. And intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with UN inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction – but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans – this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

This dictator, who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons, has already used them on whole villages – leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained – by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country – your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, our friends, and our allies. The United States will ask the UN Security Council to convene on February 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs; its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors; and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Tonight I also have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in and near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lie ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a president can make. The technologies of war have changed. The risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This Nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost, and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means – sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military – and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies ... and freedom.

Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril ... from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves. America is a strong Nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.

We Americans have faith in ourselves – but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Thank you.

----------------------------
Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:

On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution, and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live, and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.

At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical -- and then there came a day of fire.

We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny, prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights and dignity and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.

We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.

We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship; we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens: From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill, and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well -- a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.

A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy, the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments, the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.

All Americans have witnessed this idealism, and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character.

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.

In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time. To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools, and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement s