U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney seems to have put an end to the debate over whether or not the U.S. will attack Iraq. "We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve," Cheney told a convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville last night. "The risk of inaction are far greater than the risk of action."
Although he qualified his remarks by expressing his confidence that President Bush would "consult widely with the Congress, and with our friends and allies before deciding upon a course of action," the rest of Cheney's speech made it quite clear that the basic decision has already been made. He said that while some say the U.S. should wait until Saddam is actually in possession of nuclear weapons before action against him is taken, “that logic seems to me to be deeply flawed… that argument counsels a course of inaction that itself could have devastating consequences for many countries, including our own.”
He also discounted criticism that an attack on Iraq would interfere with the US’s overall war on terror: “Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.” Cheney emphasized that Saddam represents a danger not only to the U.S.: "[Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons] are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses in his own region or beyond. On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981, when the Israelis bombed the Osirik reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath. But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and [sitting atop] ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
The Vice President also explained why arms inspections are not sufficient, and compared the present situation with America's recognition of the Japanese danger only after the attack at Pearl Harbor. He also quoted former Secretary of State Kissinger as stating that the present circumstances "combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action" against Iraq.
Although he qualified his remarks by expressing his confidence that President Bush would "consult widely with the Congress, and with our friends and allies before deciding upon a course of action," the rest of Cheney's speech made it quite clear that the basic decision has already been made. He said that while some say the U.S. should wait until Saddam is actually in possession of nuclear weapons before action against him is taken, “that logic seems to me to be deeply flawed… that argument counsels a course of inaction that itself could have devastating consequences for many countries, including our own.”
He also discounted criticism that an attack on Iraq would interfere with the US’s overall war on terror: “Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace.” Cheney emphasized that Saddam represents a danger not only to the U.S.: "[Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons] are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses in his own region or beyond. On the nuclear question, many of you will recall that Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback in 1981, when the Israelis bombed the Osirik reactor. They suffered another major blow in Desert Storm and its aftermath. But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons... Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East and the United States and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and [sitting atop] ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
The Vice President also explained why arms inspections are not sufficient, and compared the present situation with America's recognition of the Japanese danger only after the attack at Pearl Harbor. He also quoted former Secretary of State Kissinger as stating that the present circumstances "combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action" against Iraq.