[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian ~~ terrorism as just cause ping ~~ by xzins

Yes, indeed. Roger that.

You know, it's not too late for Bush and Company to make this Case (the "Anti-Terrorist" Case that they should have made, or at least should have made MUCH LOUDER than the largely-mythical "WMD" Case, two years ago)...

All they have to do, in my opinion, is play the "Doe-Eyed Innocents" to the Cameras and pretend that, "Golly Gee -- we knew that Saddam had Terrorist Links, but we had no idea that it was *this bad*!!" (by this, they defuse the criticism that they didn't make a big deal of Salman Pak and Abu Nidal before the War, and are now "switching rationales" from the WMD case).

Here's how I would play it (One Debater's Opinion):

"My fellow Americans:

Two Years Ago, when we began calling Saddam Hussein to account for his multiple violations of UN resolutions, at the forefront of our National Security concerns was the terrible possibility that Hussein would develop Links to world-wide Anti-American Terrorist Organizations, and provide those Organizations with the means to acquire and deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States." (passing reference to the WMD Case) "We previously had intelligence of Iraqi training of Airliner Hijacking Teams at the Salman Pak terrorist training camp south of Baghdad," (passing reference to 9-11) "...and reports provided by Czech intelligence of meetings in Prague between Iraqi government officials and members of the Al-Queda organization involved in the planning and execution of the 9-11 atrocities." (second reference to 9-11, drive the point home)

"We now know, due to the diligent work of the new Iraqi Coalition Government," (nod of support to the New Iraqi Government) "...that Hussein's contacts, training, and support of the most dangerous Anti-American Terrorists in the world was far more advanced and imminent in threat than we had previously feared." (The word "imminent" has been used against Bush repeatedly, even though he didn't say it. Ahh, but he can use it NOW, and cast it back in his critic's teeth). "Documents provided by the Iraqi Coalition Government clearly establish the training and support provided by Hussein's regime to the 9-11 Hijackers, as well as Hussein's determination to continue development of WMD capability".

"I have previously outlined My Administration's determination to prosecute Our War on Terror along three fronts -- punishment of those responsible, punishment of those Dictatorial Regimes which gave aid and comfort to the Terrorists, and prevention of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction into Terrorist hands."

"We now know that our worst fears of Saddam Hussein's connections to Al-Queda Terrorism have been confirmed, and that it was right -- indeed, necessary -- to act against him when we did. With Hussein in custody, he will no longer be providing Training and Support to the Terrorist Organizations which murdered 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11, 2001 -- nor will he be developing the capability to pass along to them Weapons of a far more terrible nature." (Re-Visit the "Anti-Terrorism" Case once again, with a passing nod to WMD's in final review)

ETC, etc, et cetera....

Hussein's capture may have been a "gold mine" of Popularity for Bush, but it's played out now six months after the fact. These new Iraqi revelations can at least be a "silver mine", if he's willing to "turn the ship around" and re-prosecute the Anti-Terrorist Case as it should have been prosecuted in the first place.

Granted, it's a bit like trying to turn a Battleship around, but Bush should try it (IMHO). Re-Prosecute the Anti-Terrorist Case, and run it for all it's worth.

JMHO, OP

[xzins]

The genius of this speech by Pres. Bush, OP, is that he did INDEED make the prosecution of the terrorists AND those that aided/abetted/harbored them the Legitimating Cause of any action he would pursue in the ENTIRE War on Terror. (Fortunately, just today our friend, John Kerry, spoke publicly to terrorism and state his fear that the use of WMDs by terrorists WITHIN the US is our major concern.)

Incidentally, if you were to UPDATE the same provision in the constitution that gives the Congress the authority to declare war, what would you claim a "letter of reprisal" to mean in our day and age. (Since we're told that the Constitution is the "living" document, let's let it breathe new life into the "letter of reprisal."

I'd say that a reprisal is a "payback." A letter of reprisal is an authorization to pay back someone who has committed an act of such damage to you, that you authorize all necessary WARTIME action for a specific purpose.

This sounds SUSPICIOUSLY like the "Authorization" granted Pres. Bush by Congress to pursue ANYONE who aided/abetted/harbored any terrorist who acted on 9/11 and any other terrorist group connected to world terrorism.

We don't need NO STINKIN' declaration of War.

We have a "Letter of Reprisal."