[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3407-3412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            WAR ON TERRORISM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today I want to spend a little bit of time 
talking about the war on terrorism, and I believe it is a war, tracing 
the history of the previous administrations and the Bush administration 
in recognizing the threat that al Qaeda, Iraq, and others pose to the 
United States as evidenced most dramatically on the events of September 
11, 2001.
  Back in February 1998, then-President Clinton talked about the threat 
of Iraq: ``They have harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled 
monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back 
doors.''
  Another quote: ``They,'' predators of the 21st century, ``will be all 
the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical 
and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. We simply 
cannot allow that to happen. There should be no doubt, Saddam's ability 
to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat 
to the peace of that region and the security of the world. There is no 
more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His 
regime threatens the safety of the people, the stability of his region, 
and the security of all the rest of us. In the next century, the 
community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat 
Iraq poses, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to 
use them, to provide them to terrorists who travel the world. If we 
fail to respond today, Saddam Hussein will be emboldened tomorrow by 
the knowledge that they can act with impunity.''
  Another quote from President Clinton in 1998: ``I have no doubt he 
would use them again if permitted to develop them.''
  So back in 1998, President Clinton was highlighting the threat as he 
saw it, in this case talking about Iraq specifically, but also laying 
out the possibility of what might happen in the future. Again the 
quote: ``A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use 
them or provide them to terrorists.''
  On September 11, 2001, we found out in the United States about the 
willingness of terrorist organizations to use airplanes as a weapon of 
mass destruction and to inflict death and destruction to an extent we 
had never seen before.
  Another quote, and this is from President Clinton, I believe: ``Some 
day, some way, I guarantee you he will use the arsenal; and I think 
everyone of you who has worked on this for any length of time believes 
that, too.'' Again, not President Bush in 2001, 2002 or 2003, but a 
consistent message beginning in the late 1990s from President Clinton 
and his administration outlining the threat of Iraq; and, more 
importantly, the threat of a linkage of the capabilities that Iraq 
might have and their willingness to give those capabilities and share 
them with terrorist organizations.
  Again, the same speech: ``Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we 
learned in the 20th century and warns us what we must know about the 
21st century. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that 
the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, 
determination and, when necessary, action. In the next century, the 
community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq 
poses now, a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use 
them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized 
criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.''
  Through the window of 9/11, we can see how prophetic President 
Clinton was in 1998. Let me read that again: ``In this century, we 
learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and 
illegal behavior is firmness, determination and, when necessary, 
action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more

[[Page 3408]]

and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now,'' or paraphrasing, 
that I believe terrorist organizations will pose in the 21st century.
  December 17, 1998, President Clinton said: ``I am convinced that the 
decision I made to order this military action, though difficult, was 
absolutely the right thing to do. It is in our interest and in the 
interest of the people around the world. Saddam Hussein has used 
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no 
doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them.''
  So back in the 1990s, the late 1990s, President Clinton was 
highlighting the threat of Iraq and also outlining the threats of 
terrorist organizations in the 21st century.
  Another quote, and this is from the White House, a White House 
briefing. It is a speech by Senator Al Gore. This is way back in 1992. 
So even in the early 1990s, key officials in what would become the 
Clinton administration had identified the challenges that we would face 
as a Nation in the 21st century. Here is what Senator Al Gore said: 
``He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly,'' and this is 
what he says about the President at that time, ``and Bush looked the 
other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorist activities, and 
Bush looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort 
to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and 
Bush knew it, but he looked the other way.''
  Then Senator Al Gore in 1992 said: ``Well, in my view, the Bush 
administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you 
would expect. With all of the evidence that it had available to it at 
the time, Saddam Hussein's nature and intentions were perfectly 
visible.''
  In other remarks made by Vice President Al Gore, May 23, 2000, 
talking about the threat of Saddam Hussein: ``Despite our swift victory 
in every sense, there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein still 
seeks to amass weapons of mass destruction. You know as well as I do 
that as long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, there can be no 
comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the people of the 
Middle East. We have made it clear,'' and this is Vice President Al 
Gore on May 23, 2000, ``we have made it clear that it is our policy to 
see Saddam Hussein gone.'' In parentheses, applause. ``We have sought 
coalitions of opponents to challenge his power. I have met with the 
Iraqi opposition, and invite them to meet with me again next month when 
I will encourage them to further unite in their efforts against 
Saddam.''
  The threat to peace in the civilized world was well identified 
through the Clinton administration through the 1990s.
  Here is another article talking about folks and their views of Saddam 
Hussein dated November 1997: ``The stakes are very real, and they are 
enormous,'' said Richard Haass, Middle East expert on the National 
Security Council during the Bush administration. ``This is someone who 
has used weapons of mass destruction twice against his own people and 
against Iran. He does not have qualms. Based on U.N. inspection reports 
and Western intelligence assessments, Washington's allies are convinced 
that Saddam Hussein possesses the resources and technical skill to 
begin cranking out menacing new supplies of exotic weaponry and 
delivery systems with even a brief absence of foreign watch dogs.''
  That is the same thing that David Kay said when he came back, saying 
at this point in time the Iraqi survey group may not have found 
stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, and David Kay believes that 
maybe they did not exist after meeting with the new folks over there. 
He said we may or may not find the stockpiles, but the key thing here, 
and this is what David Kay said, which was reported already in 1997: 
``Washington and its allies are convinced that Hussein possesses the 
resources and technical skill to begin cranking out menacing new 
supplies of exotic weaponry and delivery systems with even a brief 
absence of foreign watch dogs.''
  So the real question was after the war and after we went in and took 
a look at what they had, what did David Kay find? He found exactly what 
was identified in 1997, that if the stockpiles are not there, what 
Saddam Hussein has done is he has developed the capability, the 
weaponry, to crank out menacing new supplies during a brief absence of 
foreign watch dogs. The intent was clear. Saddam Hussein used weapons 
of mass destruction at one time, may have had stockpiles, but clearly 
was building the technical infrastructure to be able to produce 
significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction in a relatively 
short period of time once the inspectors were gone and once sanctions 
were lifted.

                              {time}  1445

  September 9, 1998, Madeleine Albright:
  ``In this struggle our adversaries are likely to avoid traditional 
battlefield situations because there American dominance is well 
established. We must be concerned instead by weapons of mass 
destruction and by the cowardly instruments of sabotage and hidden 
bombs. These unconventional threats endanger not only our Armed Forces 
but all Americans and America's friends everywhere. We must understand 
that this confrontation is long-term. It doesn't lend itself to a quick 
victory.''
  For those of us who believe that September 11 was the culmination of 
our war with al Qaeda and with terrorist organizations, listen to 
Madeleine Albright, 1998, who recognized that this war was already 
going on in the 1990s because of the length and the number of attacks 
that had taken place during the 1990s. Remember, early in the 1990s was 
the first time that the World Trade Center was hit, and she recognized 
in her quote: ``We must understand that this confrontation is long-
term. It doesn't lend itself to quick victory.''
  She goes on to say: ``Force for peace, freedom, progress and law in 
the world. But no threat, no bomb, no terrorist can diminish America's 
determination to lead.''
  She then also goes on: ``A second major threat to America's security 
also has entered a new phase and that is weapons of mass destruction 
and the systems that deliver them. For decades, we viewed this threat 
primarily through a narrow Cold War lens and now our concerns have 
broadened. We are deeply concerned by regional tensions in South Asia 
where both India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear tests.''
  Going on: ``Chemical or biological warheads and they are devilishly 
difficult to shoot down.''
  So the threat of weapons of mass destruction was well understood 
during the Clinton administration by President Clinton, by Vice 
President Gore, by Senator Gore in 1992, by Secretary of State 
Madeleine Albright when we used force against Saddam in December of 
1998. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
  ``This is a moment of grave determination. We have decided to use 
force because other means simply have not worked. Saddam's capacity to 
develop and brandish such armaments poses a threat to international 
security and peace that cannot be ignored. Month after month we have 
given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to 
cooperation and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. 
We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to 
reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule 
of law and the will of the world.''
  October 16, 1998, National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, an op-ed 
piece in the Washington Times:
  ``Indeed we have information that Iraq has assisted in the chemical 
weapons activity in Sudan. We had information linking bin Laden to the 
Sudanese regime and the Al Shifa plant.
  ``One senior administration official, who asked not to be quoted by 
name, said the administration had compelling evidence tying Al Shifa to 
the Sudanese military and to Iraq's chemical weapons program, none of 
which have ties to bin Laden.''
  So there were questions about whether bin Laden was involved or not 
with the Al Shifa plant, but there was no

[[Page 3409]]

question here back in 1998 by a number of folks within the Clinton 
administration that Iraq was involved with chemical weapons activity in 
Sudan.
  A dangerous world. Why do I talk about the events of the 1990s up 
until 2000, the Clinton administration? It is because for a long time 
leaders in this country have been identifying Iraq and terrorism as the 
new threat to the security of America and Americans and the free world.
  An interesting quote, Secretary Albright, Time Magazine, November 23, 
1998:
  ``Up to now, we've had diplomacy backed by force. Now we need to 
shift to force backed up by diplomacy.'' In that same article, she is 
quoted as saying: ``We'll be prepared to act alone if we have to.''
  Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:
  ``Month after month we have given Iraq chance after chance to move 
from confrontation to cooperation. We have explored and exhausted every 
diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's 
misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need 
to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world.''
  President Clinton in the State of the Union speech on January 20, 
1999:
  ``For nearly a decade, Iraq has defied its obligation to destroy its 
weapons of terror and the missiles to deliver them. America will 
continue to contain Saddam, and we will work for the day when Iraq has 
a government worthy of its people.'' Remember that by that time, the 
policy of regime change for Iraq had already become the accepted policy 
of the United States and the accepted policy of the Clinton 
administration.
  Why do we talk about it now? Because the threat in 2004 is still 
very, very real. But let us go back and document that what happened on 
9/11 was not an isolated event. It was the most significant event of a 
series of attacks on U.S. interests.
  In 1993 was when the World Trade Center was bombed for the first 
time. 1996 was when the U.S. military barracks were bombed in Saudi 
Arabia. In 2000 there was the attack on the USS Cole. Of course we also 
had the attacks on our embassies in Africa during the late 1990s. In 
1995, two unidentified gunmen killed two U.S. diplomats and wounded a 
third in Karachi, Pakistan. In 1997 a Palestinian sniper opened fire on 
tourists atop the Empire State Building. A bomb exploded across the 
street from the U.S. embassy in Manila, injuring nine people. The list 
goes on. What had happened during much of the 1990s, there was 
compelling evidence that there were individuals who had declared war on 
the United States, but we never recognized the threat in terms of the 
actions that we took.
  I am sure that that will be a debate much like there is a debate as 
to whether going to war in Iraq was the appropriate activity. There 
should also be, and there will be, a debate as to whether doing very 
little during the 1990s was the appropriate action. But what we do have 
in the 1990s is a clear record of factual events that America was a 
target. We have the clear statements from a President, a Vice 
President, a National Security Adviser, a Secretary of State that 
identified the changing shifts and the challenges to the security of 
the United States, moving out of the Cold War mentality of the period 
from 1945 to the early 1990s to a new threat of rogue states, but also 
rogue organizations that were not tied to a single country but that 
were loose gatherings of individuals, scattered throughout parts of the 
world that in many cases were willing to operate on their own. They are 
still out there, and in many ways we have damaged their capabilities to 
effectively attack us; but they are still out there organizing, 
recruiting, raising funds and training with the hope and expectation 
that they will hit us and that they will hit others again in the 
future. Is that a new threat? Here is what we said about Iraq in 1999:
  ``Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. 
Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both 
at home and abroad, it continued to provide safe haven and support to 
various terrorist organizations.''
  Going on, the ``Global Terrorism Overview of State-Sponsored 
Terrorism'' says:
  ``Iraq continued to provide safe haven to a variety of Palestinian 
rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab 
Liberation Front, and the former head of the now defunct 15 May 
Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. 
aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons and protections to the MEK, an 
Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime.''
  The ``Pattern of Global Terrorism'' report in 2001 said about Iraq:
  ``In addition, the regime continued to provide training and political 
encouragement to numerous terrorist groups, although its main focus was 
again on dissident Iraqi activity overseas. Iraq provided bases to 
several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the 
Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Abu 
Nidal organization. In 2001, the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine raised its profile in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by 
carrying out successful terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. In 
recognition of the PFLP's growing role, an Iraqi vice president met 
with former PFLP Secretary General Habbash in Baghdad in January 2001 
and expressed continued Iraq support for the intifada. Also in mid-
September a senior delegation from the PFLP met with an Iraqi deputy 
prime minister. Baghdad also continued to host other Palestinian 
rejectionist groups including the Arab Liberation Front and the 15 May 
Organization.'' Iraq continued to support terrorism organizations.
  2002, the ``Patterns of Global Terrorism'':
  ``Iraq planned and sponsored international terrorism in 2002. 
Throughout the year, the Iraqi Intelligence Services laid the 
groundwork for possible attacks against civilian and military targets 
in the United States and other Western countries. The Iraqi 
Intelligence Services reportedly instructed its agents in early 2001 
that their main mission was to obtain information about the U.S. and 
Israeli targets. The IIS, Iraqi Intelligence Services, also threatened 
dissidents in the Near East and Europe and stole records and computer 
files detailing anti-regime activity. In December 2002, the press 
claimed Iraqi intelligence killed Walid al-Mayahi, a Shia Iraqi refugee 
in Lebanon and member of the Iraqi National Congress. Iraq was a safe 
haven, transit point, and operational base for groups and individuals 
who direct violence against the United States, Israel and other 
countries. Baghdad overtly assisted two categories of Iraqi-based 
terrorist organizations, Iranian dissidents devoted to toppling the 
Iranian government and a variety of Palestinian groups opposed to peace 
with Israel.''
  It goes on to list the groups that I have talked about before. Again, 
provided material assistance to the Palestinian terrorist groups that 
are in the forefront of the intifada.
  ``Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers to 
encourage Palestinian terrorism, channeling $25,000 since March through 
the ALF alone to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. 
Public testimonials by Palestinian civilians and officials and canceled 
checks captured by Israel in the West Bank verify the transfer of a 
considerable amount of Iraqi money.''
  The threat is real. Back a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be 
at a meeting where the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, 
Steve Cambone, spoke. I think he wrapped it up quite well, because I 
think if you go through this and later on when you take a look at what 
the Director of the CIA said, Mr. Tenet, who served in both the Clinton 
and the current Bush administrations, you go through and you take a 
look at everything or much of what was said during the 1990s by a 
number of officials within the Clinton administration, what was said by 
the Bush administration, what was said earlier on in the 1990s by 
Senator Al Gore, outlining the threat to the United States. And then 
imagine taking a look at that threat through the window of 9/11. Here 
is what Mr. Cambone said:

[[Page 3410]]

  ``We are a nation at war. We do not know how long it will last, but 
it is unlikely to be short. We cannot know where or against whom all of 
its battles will be fought. There are multiple fronts in this war. 
There is no single theater of operation.

                              {time}  1500

  ``We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians 
and military alike. We do know that battles and campaigns will be both 
conventional and unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles 
and campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be fought in 
secret, where our victories will be known to only a few.''
  Think back on the last few years and the attacks that we have been 
the victims of. We do know, as Dr. Cambone says again, that we are all 
at risk, at home and abroad. On 9/11, the attack on the World Trade 
Center, the Pentagon, the crash in the field in Pennsylvania, civilians 
were victims, civilians here in our homeland. But our embassies have 
been attacked in Africa. Our military folks have been attacked aboard 
the USS Cole. Our barracks have been attacked in Saudi Arabia and the 
World Trade Center was attacked in 1993. Dr. Cambone identified, ``We 
do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and 
military alike,'' and we know now with the ongoing activities in Iraq 
that over 500 young men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. There 
have been countless numbers of our folks who have been wounded, many of 
them rather severely. I had the opportunity to meet with one of the 
families this week of someone who was badly injured in Iraq, and it was 
their prayer and their request that we, as Americans, not forget about 
those who have been injured in Iraq, that with these improvised 
explosive devices that are targeting our military vehicles or that 
suicide bombers with very deadly bombs, that there are other American 
families who are hurting. They are the ones whose loved ones are in a 
hospital in Iraq, in Germany or here in Washington, D.C. at Walter Reed 
Hospital. So let us not forget our military individuals who have been 
injured in and their families.
  Dr. Cambone goes on to say ``We are facing a turbulent and volatile 
world populated by a number of highly adaptive state and nonstate 
actors. Some of these are weighing whether, to what extent, or how, 
they might oppose the interests of the United States and its friends. 
Others, such as the terrorist organizations responsible for attacks on 
the United States, Turkey, Indonesia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Israel, 
Kenya, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places 
have committed themselves to war.''
  I think that is what we have to recognize. This is what Dr. Cambone 
says. These individuals have committed themselves to war with the 
United States. Whether we want to be engaged in this war or not is no 
longer our decision. They have committed themselves and declared war on 
the United States. We now need to respond to protect and provide for 
the security of the United States.
  `` . . . It is impossible to predict with confidence what nation or 
entity will pose a threat, in 5, 10, or 20 years, to the United States 
or to our friends and allies.''
  Dr. Cambone goes on to say: ``But not everything that unfolds in the 
coming years should be a surprise.''
  If we take a look at history the last 12, 13 years, what can we 
expect? He goes on: ``We can expect that an adversary will continuously 
search for effective means to attack our people; our economy, military, 
and political power; and the people in power of our friends and allies.
  ``We can also expect that an adversary will have access to a range of 
modern technologies and will be prepared to use them to magnify the 
destructiveness of their attacks, using truck bombs and improvised 
explosives, cyber intrusions to attack the computer systems upon which 
we rely, radio transmitters to jam our space assets, small laboratories 
to develop new biological and genetically altered agents, and chemical 
and nuclear technology and materials delivered by missile, plane, boat, 
or backpack to poison our environment and destroy human lives.
  ``In this era of surprise, lack of preparation is a harbinger of 
catastrophe. Being prepared, by which I mean taking measures to avoid 
surprise, if possible to mitigate its effect when it occurs, and to 
bring appropriate force to bear to defeat those who would surprise us, 
is essential.''
  This is a very complicated and a very difficult environment in which 
we work today. We need to convince ourselves that there is a real 
threat to the United States. We need to educate ourselves as to what 
the threat looks like. It is very difficult to predict exactly what it 
is going to look like, and then to have the dialogue and the discussion 
as to how we respond. I think part of the problem that we have in 2004 
is that the debate and the discussion that could have taken place 4 or 
5 years ago never took place. Even though there was mounting evidence 
and even though the Clinton administration in many ways was trying to 
raise the profile of this issue, we did not have the national debate 
about how we respond to an emerging threat to the United States. We had 
that discussion and that debate and we understood the threat of the 
Cold War. I am not sure how long it took America and our allies to come 
together to recognize the threat and to respond to the threat, but we 
did. America responded after World War II immediately recognizing the 
threat, helping to rebuild a free Europe, a democratic Europe, being 
the focal point for creating NATO to stand as the barrier to expansion 
of the former Soviet Union, and we did it incredibly well, and in many 
ways, as we describe the effort against the former Soviet Union, it 
kind of matches the threat that we face today. We knew there was a 
threat. We did not know exactly how it would manifest itself. We did 
not know exactly if there would ever be an attack against the United 
States. But we figured it would be a long and difficult struggle. There 
were no easy answers but that we would come together and that we would 
be engaged in what we called the Cold War. And the Cold War lasted 45 
years. And then finally the wall came down and we were able to declare 
victory. But as that wall was coming down, another threat began to 
emerge, and that was the threat of terrorist organizations. So after 
1945, it probably took us a period of time to identify the threat, to 
have the discussion and the dialogue within the country as to how we 
should respond to the threat, but once we identified the threat, once 
we had the national dialogue about the threat, there was a lot of 
consensus about how we should respond, and the response was one of we 
are going to be forceful and we are going to be in a position to defend 
ourselves and we are going to stand strong. And after 45 years we were 
able to defeat and win the Cold War. There are lessons that we can 
learn from that but we need to now go through the process.
  Hopefully Americans, as they take a look at the events of the 1990s, 
as they then take a look at what happened on 9/11, and as they take a 
look at what is going on in Iraq and what we have found in Iraq, they 
will begin to understand the nature of the threat to the United States. 
A very uncomfortable threat. With the former Soviet Union and the Cold 
War, we could identify the buildings, we could identify the people, we 
could identify the borders and the boundaries most of the time. But 
here we do not know the players. We do not know their strength. We do 
not know where they are. But we do know a few things. We do know that 
they are very willing to use unconventional weapons in unconventional 
ways, that they will attack civilians and military personnel. They will 
attack our friends, they will attack us in places around the world in 
very deadly ways. We know that they come back and revisit their same 
targets on a regular basis until they are successful. So we know quite 
a bit about them.
  Here is what Director Tenet of the CIA said, who is very familiar 
with this because he is the one person who was carried through as the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from the

[[Page 3411]]

Clinton administration through the Bush administration, recognizing 
that the Clinton administration saw terrorism and Iraq as a threat and 
carried that message and that understanding into the Bush 
administration. What does he say in a speech that he gave on February 
24? I would encourage my colleagues to read the speech in detail 
because it gives a lot of framework and context to the challenges that 
we face in 2004. As a matter of fact, it is entitled The Worldwide 
Threat 2004: Challenges in a Changing Global Context. What does he say 
about terrorism? ``I'll begin today on terrorism, with a stark bottom 
line: The al Qaeda leadership structure we charted after September 11 
is seriously damaged, but the group remains as committed as ever to 
attacking the U.S. homeland. But as we continue the battle against al 
Qaeda, we must overcome a movement, a global movement infected by al 
Qaeda's radical agenda. In this battle we are moving forward in our 
knowledge of the enemy, his plans, capabilities, and intentions. And 
what we've learned continues to validate my deepest concern: that this 
enemy remains intent on obtaining, and using, catastrophic weapons.''
  Going on: ``Military and intelligence operations by the United States 
and its allies overseas have degraded the group. Local al Qaeda cells 
are forced to make their own decisions because of disarray in the 
central leadership.''
  ``We are creating large and growing gaps in the al Qaeda hierarchy.
  ``And we are receiving a broad array of help from our coalition 
partners, who have been central to our effort against al Qaeda.''
  In a little while, I am going to talk about the changes in Libya. But 
the amazing thing is that more and more countries are coming to the 
realization that we are involved in a war on terrorism and that they 
are involved in a war on terrorism and that in many cases the 
terrorists do not distinguish between America or America and its 
friends.
  Whom are we getting help from?
  ``Since the May 12 bombings, the Saudi government has shown an 
important commitment to fighting al Qaeda in the Kingdom, and Saudi 
officers have paid with their lives. Elsewhere in the Arab world we're 
receiving valuable cooperation from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, 
the UAE, Oman, and many others. President Musharraf of Pakistan remains 
a courageous and indispensable ally who has become the target of 
assassins for the help he's given us.''
  It is always interesting to hear people say we do not have any 
friends in this. We have got lots of friends in this whose countries 
are paying with the lives of their citizens and their security 
personnel.

                              {time}  1515

  Partners in Southeast Asia have been instrumental in the roundup of 
key regional associates of al Qaeda. Our European partners worked 
closely together to unravel and disrupt a continent-wide network of 
terrorists planning chemical, biological, and conventional attacks in 
Europe. So we have made notable strides. But do not misunderstand me, 
again quoting Director Tenet. Do not misunderstand me. I am not 
suggesting al Qaeda is defeated. It is not. We are still at war. This 
is a learning organization that remains committed to attacking the 
United States, its friends and allies.
  Successive blows to al Qaeda's central leadership have transformed 
the organization into a loose collection of regional networks that 
operate more autonomously. These regional components have demonstrated 
their operational prowess in the past years. The sites of their attacks 
span the entire reach of al Qaeda: Morocco, Kenya, Turkey, Jordan, 
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia. And al Qaeda 
seeks to influence the regional networks with operational training 
consultations and money. Khalid Sheik Mohamad sent Hambali $50,000 for 
operations in Southeast Asia. You should not take the fact that these 
attacks occurred abroad to mean that the threat to the United States 
homeland has waned. As al Qaeda and its associated groups undertook 
these attacks overseas, detainees consistently talk about the 
importance the group still attaches to striking the main enemy, the 
United States.
  Across the operational spectrum, air, maritime, special weapons, we 
have time and again uncovered plots that are chilling. On aircraft 
plots alone, we have uncovered new plans to recruit pilots and to evade 
new security measures in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. 
Even catastrophic attacks on the scale of 11 September remain within al 
Qaeda's reach. Make no mistake, these plots are hatched abroad; but 
they target U.S. soil or that of our allies.
  Remember, I am quoting from a speech that is available to all my 
colleagues on the Central Intelligence Agency Web page, and I encourage 
them to read this.
  So far I have been talking only about al Qaeda, but al Qaeda is not 
the limit of terrorist threats worldwide. Al Qaeda has infected others 
with its ideology, which depicts the United States as Islam's greatest 
foe. The steady growth of Osama bin Laden's anti-U.S. sentiment through 
the wider Sunni extremist movement and the broad dissemination of al 
Qaeda's destructive expertise ensure that a serious threat will remain 
for the foreseeable future, with or without al Qaeda in the picture. If 
we take care of al Qaeda and capture bin Laden, it is not over. There 
is still a tremendous amount of work to do.
  A decade ago, bin Laden had a vision of rousing Islamic terrorists 
worldwide to attack the United States. He created al Qaeda to 
indoctrinate a worldwide movement and global jihad with America as the 
enemy, an enemy to be attacked with every means at hand. In the minds 
of bin Laden and his cohorts, September 11 was the shining moment, 
their shot heard round the world; and they want to capitalize on it. 
That was not the culmination; that was the kickoff of their campaign. 
And so even as al Qaeda reels from our blows, other extremist groups 
within the movement, it influences to become the next wave of the 
terrorist threat.
  Let me just kind of summarize the terrorism and the threat that we 
face, quoting Mr. Tenet from his speech: ``For the growing number of 
jihadists interested in attacking the United States, a spectacular 
attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many strive for, 
with or without the encouragement by al Qaeda's central leadership.'' A 
spectacular attack on the U.S. homeland is the brass ring that many 
strive for, with or without encouragement by al Qaeda's central 
leadership.
  I want to talk a little bit about the rebuilding efforts that are 
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was a couple of weeks ago that I 
and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit Iraq and to take 
a look at exactly what was happening. There is tremendous progress 
being made in Iraq, there is tremendous progress being made in 
Afghanistan, but I think we have to put this in the context of how much 
work actually has to happen.
  Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for over 30 years. There was no rule of 
law. There were no effective police agencies. There were no judicial 
processes in place. It was a mess.
  If we go back and take a look at the rebuilding process, as Americans 
we should not underestimate the amount of work that needs to take 
place. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein ruled this country ruthlessly for 30 
years, killing, executing somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 
500,000 of his own people, brutally attacking the Shiites after the 
1991 Gulf War, attacking the Kurds in the north of Iraq, breaking down 
the rule of law, breaking down a civil society, no police, no law 
enforcement, no judiciary, no transparent government, you know, totally 
destroying what we would call a civil society.
  That is the same thing we see in Afghanistan after 12 years of rule 
by the Taliban or the Russians. Again, the rule of law is gone, no 
police, no effective security forces, no framework, and no rules by 
which society can live together in a civil way.
  We are now trying to help the Iraqis and the people in Afghanistan to 
build

[[Page 3412]]

a civil society, with a tremendous amount of focus on developing 
policing organizations, a law enforcement process, a judicial process, 
a constitution that will enable the folks in Iraq and Afghanistan to 
create a civil society. In both countries we are also working on trying 
to help them rebuild infrastructure, roads, hospitals, schools, other 
health care facilities, make sure that they have got water and food, 
the basic necessities of life.
  It is going take tremendous amounts of time and energy for the people 
in these countries to identify the rules by which they want to live 
together, to then structure the security and the police and the law 
enforcement and the judicial branch to make it happen, to establish 
institutions of government that are transparent so that the people who 
are served by these government institutions actually recognize and 
believe that these government institutions are working for them, rather 
than being an organization that they should fear, that might imprison 
them.
  They are experimenting with the opportunity of free speech, and in 
both countries they are beginning the process of constitutional and 
representative government by which they will have elections and have 
the individuals that they elect begin to govern them.
  So it is a very, very difficult process that, at the same time, is 
being hindered by the continuing violence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 
So as we try to help them rebuild a civil society, there is tremendous 
challenge that they face because of the violence.
  There is a letter that we got the other day that was picked up in 
Iraq that outlined the strategy. Here is one of the terrorists talking 
about their strategy:
  ``After study and examination, we can narrow our enemy down to four 
groups. The Americans. These, as you know, are the most cowardly of 
God's creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God 
to enable us to kill them and capture them to sow panic among those 
behind them and to trade them for our detained Shiites and brothers.
  ``The Kurds. These are a lump in the throat and a thorn, whose time 
to be clipped is yet to come. They are last on the list, even though we 
are making efforts to harm some of their symbolic figures, God willing.
  ``Soldiers, police and agents. These are the eyes, ears and hands of 
the occupier through which he sees, hears and delivers violent blows. 
God willing, we are determined to target them strong in the coming 
period before the situation is consolidated and they control.''
  I will get on to the fourth in a minute. When we were in Iraq, we had 
the opportunity to go visit the police academy, 500, 600 young people 
who were committed to helping rebuild Iraq and rebuilding a civil 
society. They know that when they come out of their 4 to 6 weeks of 
training and they go on the streets of Baghdad, Basra and the other 
cities in Iraq, they walk out on their streets with a target on their 
back, because the last thing the terrorists want to see, of those 
opposed to us in Iraq, the last thing that they want to see is an 
effective law enforcement and security apparatus in Iraq, because they 
know that that is the beginning of the end.
  We went there, we laid a wreath in recognition of the over 100 police 
cadets, policemen and women and potential recruits who were killed in 
the 8 to 10 days before we came there through suicide bombings. We then 
had the opportunity to shake hands and to meet many of these recruits. 
Their enthusiasm for their work, their enthusiasm for building a new 
Iraq, their enthusiasm that Saddam Hussein was gone and that they had 
their country back was very, very clear. They knew that it was the 
Americans that had given them their country back; and they were very, 
very appreciative and thankful. They knew that the future of Iraq was 
in their hands, and not in the hands of the Americans or the coalition 
forces, but that what we provided them was the framework to take back 
their country and to move in the future.
  You could see it in their eyes when you looked at them, you could 
feel it in the vigor and the strength of their handshake, you could 
hear it in their voices; and as you left, they took their hand and put 
it on their heart and moved it away to express the deepness and the 
sincerity in the comments that they were making to us.
  The Shia, how do our terrorists feel about the Shia? These, in our 
opinion, are the key to change. I mean, the key to change? What kind of 
change are they looking for? I mean that targeting and hitting them in 
their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show 
the Sunnis their rabies and bear the teeth of the hidden rancor hidden 
in their breast. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of 
sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis 
as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of 
these Sabians. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are 
the sharpest blades, the most determined and most loyal when they meet 
those Batinies, who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are 
arrogant only with the weak and attack only the broken wing. Most of 
the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides 
and fear the consequences of empowering them. Were it not for the 
enfeebled Sufi sheiks and the Muslim brothers, people would have told a 
different tale.
  It is very clear what the folks who are opposed to us are going to 
do. They are going to kill the police and they are going to fight and 
drive sectarian violence.
  I want to talk just briefly about Libya, because some have said 
showing strength is a problem. Take a look at what has happened with 
the Libyans. I was there a couple of weeks ago as well. At the end of 
the December visit, the Libyans admitted having a nuclear weapons 
program and having bought uranium feed material for gas centrifuge 
enrichment, admitted having nuclear weapons design documents, 
acknowledged having made about 25 tons of sulfur mustard chemical 
weapons agents, aerial bombs for the mustard and small amounts of nerve 
agent, provided access to their deployed Skud-B forces and revealed the 
details of indigenous missile design work and of cooperation with North 
Korea on the 800 kilometer range Scuds-CSs.

                              {time}  1530

  What a change in Libya. The headlines in today's paper. ``Ghadafi 
Vows No More Terror.'' He seeks a new era with the United States, seeks 
better relationships with the United States.
  One of our colleagues who was there this weekend is quoted as saying, 
``The incredible thing about being here is to hear a former antagonist 
of our country say, `What in the world was I thinking when I took on a 
superpower,' says Silvestre Reyes, Texas, Democrat. `I thought it was 
an incredible, historic moment. This could potentially redefine our 
relationships with Africa and potential with the most conflicted part 
of the world, which is the Middle East. If I had not been here and had 
Chairman Weldon or Congressman Ortiz tell me about it, I would not have 
believed it,' he said.''
  So what a dramatic change we are seeing, I think, in many reasons 
because we have displayed strength and the determination in dealing 
with the types of threats that President Clinton and his administration 
identified throughout the 1990s, that President Bush and his 
administration identified during their administration, and because of 
the strong action we are seeing a change in behavior in Libya, with a 
possibility and hope for progress in Iran and North Korea.

                          ____________________