Capitol Spotlight

If presidential election history is a guide, there WILL be an October Surprise between Thursday, October 28, 2004 and November 2, 2004. The goal of an October Surprise is to shake the electorate to make sure that a particular presidential candidate wins. The most interesting October Surprises are the ones controlled by the presidential campaigns or by individuals who have a political agenda because they determine the date and time of the surprise.

The race between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry will undoubtedly be a close one. Any damaging surprise can tilt the vote in key battleground states and determine the outcome. According to independent pollster John Zogby, the only pollster who accurately predicted the outcome of the presidential race in 1996 and 2000 and the one relied on by MyCapitol.com for electoral college analysis, the current race will come down to the wire, despite the recent fluctuations in recent polls by other news organizations.

Interestingly, President Bush did not mention Osama Bin Laden when he accepted the Republican nomination for President on September 2, 2004. Two reasons could account for Bin Laden's absence. First, the President or his presidential advisors (i.e. Karl Rove) might want to lower expectations to heighten the surprise just in case Bin Laden is found. Second, Bin Laden will not be found and the President does not want to raise any hopes.

It happened in Spain and it could happen in the United States. For several months there has been speculation that Al-Qaeda may want to disrupt the presidential elections. Even though it is not Al-Qaeda's modus operandi to strike when the spotlight is on their activities, a terrorist strike is still possible, even with the increased security and intelligence since 9-11.

If an attack is imminent, expect the Department of Homeland Security to raise the threat level to "RED". The fear of a possible attack will affect the way people vote. It is no coincidence that Vice-President Dick Cheney and U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert have told the American people that a vote for Kerry is a vote for a new terrorist attack.

Somewhere under the sands of Iraq a weapon of mass destruction may be found in October. Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction was the main reason for removing the vicious dictator and going to war. Finding at least one weapon will vindicate President Bush and justify a continued American presence in the oil rich country.

Someone close to the President or Vice-President will take the fall for leaking the name of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent and wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. An independent prosecutor has questioned various reporters who have identified the White House source. Stay tuned for the shake-up.

It happened to Barack Obama's Republican opponent in Illinois and it could happen to John Kerry. The media have been trying to unseal Kerry's divorce papers to publish juicy and embarrassing details, if any. The publication of embarrassing details could affect the public's perception of Kerry's character in key battleground states.

She may be in Africa, but she could spice up a close campaign by granting media interviews to discuss her prior relationship with John Kerry. Kerry's former intern has denounced reports of an alleged affair. However, strange things do happen as an election gets closer.

Michael Moore is about to get richer. On October 5th, the date of the Vice-Presidential debate in Ohio, his larger than life op-ed piece about the Bush Administration and the war on terror will hit video stores. In a recent survey, more than 30% said they were going to skip the theater version and wait for it to be released on VHS/DVD.

New documents about President Bush's record may come to light, but they will not be reported by CBS News or Dan Rather. After receiving a journalistic black-eye, Bush's National Guard papers may be too radioactive for CBS to touch. Don't be surprised if other media outlets of 527 groups divulge the information.

Texans for Truth, an Austin, Texas based 527 group created in response to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on John Kerry's record, has offered $50,000 to anyone who served with President Bush in Alabama. The President has been unable to identify any witnesses. A surprise witness may step up to the plate to claim the reward at the last minute and restore confidence in the President's National Guard service.

This past week, Richard Clarke, a former Bush White House insider on terrorism, gave the John Kerry Campaign an early Christmas gift - doubt. In a presidential election, the most potent weapon a candidate can use is doubt, especially on an issue that will make or break a presidential campaign. In this case, it is the Bush/Cheney record on antiterrorism. President Bush has made his anti-terror stewardship a key part of his "War Presidency" campaign. His approval ratings on the issue were sky high that Democrats could not attack Bush without appearing unpatriotic. Then came Richard Clarke. The release of his best-selling book and his testimony before the nonpartisan 9/11 Commission popped the anti-terror balloon that once flew high above the skeptics and critics. Now the campaign issue has quickly descended into hostile political territory.

Against All Enemies is compelling. If Clarke's allegations are true, it is an indictment on the Clinton and Bush's administrations' lackadaisical approach to fighting counter-terrorism, Most damaging, however, is Clarke's assertions that the Bush White House considered Al Qaeda and the war on terror secondary to getting Saddam Hussein. The Bush White House and the Republican leadership adamantly refute Clarke's allegations and have launched an all out war on destroying Clarke's credibility. Clarke, a registered Republican, worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and the current President.

The severity of the allegations is measured by the response to quash them. Every key official in the Bush White House, the Bush/Cheney Campaign, and the Republican leadership have taken extreme measures to set up a political firewall to prevent the damage from spreading. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Vice-President Dick Cheney have appeared on various television and radio talk shows to dispel any misconceptions about the President's commitment on terror. Ironically, Rice refuses to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission to refute the charges on executive privilege grounds. Even Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have called on the Bush White House to declassify secret testimony Clarke made to Congress to prove he is a liar. Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry entered the fray yesterday and called the ferocious response "character assassination". Kerry also challenged the Republican debunkers to prosecute Clarke for perjury if they can prove it.

The response may have come a little too late. A Newsweek poll released yesterday shows that Richard Clarke's has caused significant damage to President Bush. The survey shows that Bush's rating has fallen to 57 percent. It was once 70 percent. Political observers note that if this issue can be neutralized and President Bush is forced to focus on the economy and jobs, John Kerry has a good chance of changing addresses in November.

Later this morning, an army of lawyers for the proponents and opponents of mid-decade redistricting will square off in a federal courtroom to address the issues which have been raised in several lawsuits filed since the Texas Legislature approved a new congressional map. In Walter Session, et al. v. Rick Perry, et al. a three judge federal panel will hear witness testimony and consider statistical evidence to determine if the new congressional map violates the rights of minority voters under the Voting Rights Act. Specifically, the three-judge panel will determine if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been violated.

As a preliminary matter, Democratic Plaintiffs will likely argue to the three-judge panel that the new congressional map is unconstitutional and illegal because redistricting should only occur once every ten years. Since the Texas Legislature failed to pass a congressional map in 2001, it missed its window of opportunity. The Democratic Plaintiffs will rely on a recent decision from the Colorado Supreme Court which threw out a Republican dominated congressional map because the Colorado constitution only allows congressional redistricting to occur once every decade. The Court specifically noted that it was relying on the Colorado constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, for its decision.

Proponents of the new map will likely argue that the Colorado decision is irrelevant because the Texas Constitution does not set a limit on how many times the Texas Legislature can redistrict. They will point to an Attorney General's opinion that gives the Texas Legislature authority to redistrict should it chose to do so.

Yesterday morning, one of the attorneys for the Democratic Plaintiffs argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that partisan gerrymandering in congressional redistricting is illegal because it violates the U.S. Constitution. In Veith v. Jubelirer, 123 S.Ct. 2652 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court will determine if the Pennsylvania congressional map violated the U.S. Constitution by being too partisan.

The same arguments regarding partisan gerrymandering will likely be raised regarding the new Texas map. The opponents of the map will point out that the main goal was to eliminate Democrats in order to maximize Republican representation in the congressional representation.

Proponents of the map will maintain that redistricting is an inherent political exercise and that partisan gerrymandering does not violate the U.S. Constitution. They will point to a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case which says that partisan gerrymandering is not illegal. Until the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise, the 1986 case is still good law.

The Democratic Plaintiffs will likely point out that the new congressional maps which stretch from Austin and Bastrop to the Lower Rio Grande Valley are illegal because race was a dominant factor in drawing those districts. They will point to Districts 25 and 15, which, according to them, are not geographically compact and bizarre. They will also likely point out that District 25 is over 75% minority, which is more than necessary for voters to elect the candidate of their choice.

Proponents will likely argue that race can be considered in drawing districts so long as it is not the dominant factor. They will argue that the high percentage of minorities in District 25 is due to the existing populations in the counties comprising the district. Furthermore, they will argue that politics, not race, was the driving force in shaping the new districts. Thus, the map is not illegal.

The crux of the Democratic Plaintiffs' lawsuit is that it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because the map has a discriminatory effect. Unlike Section 5, which deals with voter retrogression, Section 2 deals with diluting minority votes. In other words, Section 2 looks at the "results" of the changes. There are certain preconditions the Plaintiffs must meet in order for the three-judge panel to do a "totality of the circumstances" analysis.

America and a broad coalition acted first in Afghanistan, by destroying the training camps of terror, and removing the regime that harbored al Qaeda. In a series of raids and actions around the world, nearly two-thirds of al Qaeda's known leaders have been captured or killed, and we continue on al Qaeda's trail. We have exposed terrorist front groups, seized terrorist accounts, taken new measures to protect our homeland, and uncovered sleeper cells inside the United States. And we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history.

For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September the 11th, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.

This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly -- yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.

The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat.

Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.

Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny.

Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the south, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups.

Though their attacks are localized, the terrorists and Saddam loyalists have done great harm. They have ambushed American and British service members -- who stand for freedom and order. They have killed civilian aid workers of the United Nations -- who represent the compassion and generosity of the world. They have bombed the Jordanian embassy -- the symbol of a peaceful Arab country. And last week they murdered a respected cleric and over a hundred Muslims at prayer -- bombing a holy shrine and a symbol of Islam's peaceful teachings.

There is more at work in these attacks than blind rage. The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world. In the past, the terrorists have cited the examples of Beirut and Somalia, claiming that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge. In this, they are mistaken.

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.

America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own.

First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.

Since the end of major combat operations, we have conducted raids seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition, and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists. So far, of the 55 most wanted former Iraqi leaders, 42 are dead or in custody. We are sending a clear message: anyone who seeks to harm our soldiers can know that our soldiers are hunting for them.

Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.

Some countries have requested an explicit authorization of the United Nations Security Council before committing troops to Iraq. I have directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to introduce a new Security Council resolution, which would authorize the creation of a multinational force in Iraq, to be led by America.

I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties. Terrorists in Iraq have attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the cause of the civilized world. Members of the United Nations now have an opportunity -- and the responsibility -- to assume a broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.

Third, we are encouraging the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council, comprised of 25 leaders representing Iraq's diverse people. The Governing Council recently appointed cabinet ministers to run government departments. Already more than 90 percent of towns and cities have functioning local governments, which are restoring basic services. We're helping to train civil defense forces to keep order, and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders, and a new Iraqi army. In all these roles, there are now some 60,000 Iraqi citizens under arms, defending the security of their own country, and we are accelerating the training of more.

Iraq is ready to take the next steps toward self-government. The Security Council resolution we introduce will encourage Iraq's Governing Council to submit a plan and a timetable for the drafting of a constitution and for free elections. From the outset, I have expressed confidence in the ability of the Iraqi people to govern themselves. Now they must rise to the responsibilities of a free people and secure the blessings of their own liberty.

Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year. This budget request will also support our commitment to helping the Iraqi and Afghan people rebuild their own nations, after decades of oppression and mismanagement. We will provide funds to help them improve security. And we will help them to restore basic services, such as electricity and water, and to build new schools, roads, and medical clinics. This effort is essential to the stability of those nations, and therefore, to our own security. Now and in the future, we will support our troops and we will keep our word to the more than 50 million people of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.

The people of Iraq are emerging from a long trial. For them, there will be no going back to the days of the dictator, to the miseries and humiliation he inflicted on that good country. For the Middle East and the world, there will be no going back to the days of fear, when a brutal and aggressive tyrant possessed terrible weapons. And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.

The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, so far from home.

The Americans who assume great risk overseas understand the great cause they are in. Not long ago I received a letter from a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. He wrote about his pride in serving a just cause, and about the deep desire of Iraqis for liberty. "I see it," he said, "in the eyes of a hungry people every day here. They are starved for freedom and opportunity." And he concluded, "I just thought you'd like a note from the 'front lines of freedom.'" That Army captain, and all of our men and women serving in the war on terror, are on the front lines of freedom. And I want each of them to know, your country thanks you, and your country supports you.

Fellow citizens: We've been tested these past 24 months, and the dangers have not passed. Yet Americans are responding with courage and confidence. We accept the duties of our generation. We are active and resolute in our own defense. We are serving in freedom's cause -- and that is the cause of all mankind.

Without the Texas 11, who are temporarily exiled in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Texas Senate could not act on any legislation, including redistricting. Texas Governor Rick Perry has already indicated that he plans to call a third special session on congressional redistricting, but he hasn't said when. Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst would like to take a break to refine any final redistricting plans and await a federal court's ruling on the lawsuit filed by the Senate Democrats in Laredo, Texas. A hearing on crucial motions in the case will be held this upcoming Wednesday, August 27th. The court's rulings could affect the political and legal strategies of the Texas 11 and Republican leadership.

Even if the federal court does not rule in their favor, the Texas 11 have vowed to stay in New Mexico to delay a vote on any congressional redistricting plan. Without a vote in the Texas Senate, the State of Texas cannot submit a redistricting plan which reflects the policy choices of the body to the U.S. Department of Justice for pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Pre-clearance of any new map is required because of the Texas' history of discrimination against minority groups. The U.S. Department of Justice is required to pre-clear a map within 60 days of receiving it; however, if the Department requests additional information from the State of Texas within the 60 days period (and they probably will in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Georgia v. Ashcroft), the deadline is extended by an additional 60 days. Thus, the pre-clearance process can take up to 120 days (4 months). Alternatively, the State of Texas may file a lawsuit in a district court in the District of Columbia for approval of the map rather than go through the U.S. Department of Justice. There is no guarantee that a lawsuit will expedite the approval process.

Time is of the essence for the Republican leadership if a new plan is to be in place for the March primary and 2004 General Election. Filing for the primary begins on December 3rd, unless the date is moved by the Secretary of State. A new congressional map must be pre-cleared and all legal challenges addressed before that date. If a new congressional map is not pre-cleared by the time filing begins, any private citizen can go to a federal court and get a temporary restraining order to prevent the new map from being used. Without a new map, the current congressional map could be used for the March 2004 primary, which will maintain the status quo of 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the congressional delegation.

The Central Intelligence Agency issued a statement yesterday acknowledging responsibility for a false statement in President Bush's State of the Union address. The White House has publicly admitted that it could not substantiate a claim that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium in Africa. The British government had originally made the claim of Iraq's attempts.

The Washington Post reported that the CIA had told the British government that the statement was false and that U.S. intelligence officials were aware that the information was not reliable. Even after having doubts, the statement was still included in the State of the Union speech.

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-president or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began “vigorously trying to procure” more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: “A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure “uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake.” The Estimate also states: “We do not know the status of this arrangement.” With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.” Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: “Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”

An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

It's Easter in Texas and the Texas Legislature is praying for a magical golden egg that can solve Texas' economic woes. Unlike previous legislative sessions, the legislative egg Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn will deliver to the Texas Legislature later this month or early May will be less than golden. If all economic indicators are correct, it will probably be a little bit rotten.

Before the Texas Legislature finalizes the budget each legislative session, the Comptroller revises her revenue estimate to provide lawmakers with a true picture of Texas' economic condition. Comptroller Strayhorn has already promised to “tell it like it is” and urged lawmakers to tighten another notch in the legislative belt. In the past, lawmakers relied on a positive revenue estimate to fund special projects in the Texas budget. However, this year, the decline in sales tax revenue, the sputtering economy and limited consumer spending has created a recipe for a deficit disaster.

Some lawmakers anticipate that the deficit is more than the $9.9 billion Strayhorn anticipated earlier this year. The true deficit, according to some capitol insiders, is between $12 and $15 billion. The Texas House of Representatives has already passed a budget prioritizing spending on the assumption that the deficit is $9.9 billion. The Texas Senate has yet to vote on a budget. In all likelihood, the Senate budget will not mirror the one passed in the House. A conference committee of Senate and House members will make the final revisions and produce a budget before June 2nd, if there are no last minute surprises. An announcement by Strayhorn that the deficit is worse than originally thought could complicate matters for Texas lawmakers who are trying to avoid a special session on the budget.

Before any budget is implemented, Strayhorn has a constitutional duty to certify the amount of revenue available. If lawmakers do not produce a budget that addresses the true deficit, Strayhorn may oppose it and lawmakers will be back in Austin debating cuts in services, employee layoffs and non-tax revenue options. Because of her authority, Strayhorn is in a position to influence the final budget.

Strayhorn has already told lawmakers that the $1 billion Rainy Day Fund is off limits, even though some lawmakers feel that Texas is facing a monsoon and the money must be used. Without new revenue sources, creative accounting techniques may be used to create a perception that the budget has been balanced in the Lone Star State. Texas Governor Rick Perry has already said he opposes “sleights of hand” to balance the budget. Instead, the Governor feels that the anticipated revenue stream is enough to meet the basic needs of Texans. Special interest groups for the poor, elderly, and disabled beg to differ.

There will be no jokes on April Fool's Day for the proponents and opponents of affirmative action. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the admissions policies at the University of Michigan are constitutional or a mere guise for racial quotas. The Supreme Court will revisit its Bakke decision which set the boundaries for the consideration of race in higher education admissions. Even though there was no majority opinion in Bakke, university officials have considered race as a factor in university admissions. In Bakke, the Court did not specifically say how much weight should be given to race in higher education admissions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued recent rulings on affirmative action, but not in the context of higher education. Thus, this is the most significant and controversial affirmative action case to be considered by the Court. President George W. Bush opposes the Michigan program because it leads to racial quotas. However, he has not said that race should never be considered in higher education. Not everyone in The White House agrees. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice said she supports the consideration of race as does Secretary of State Colin Powell. President Bush supports a concept called “affirmative access,” a term which has not been clearly defined by The White House.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed briefs opposing the undergraduate and law school admissions program at the University of Michigan. The briefs did not call for an outright ban on the consideration of race. Instead, the government is urging the consideration on non-racial alternatives to diversify a student body. Various corporations, political and military leaders have urged the Supreme Court not to dismantle affirmative action.

In anticipation of the arguments this Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Education released a report on non-racial alternatives to achieve diversity in higher education. The report places emphasis on socio-economic status. The report, however, makes no mention of legacy admissions, a practice which many proponents of affirmative action argue benefits white students.

The concept of diversity in the classroom is not what causes controversy. It is the means used to achieve it. Proponents believe that affirmative action achieves diversity by considering the same factor which was used to exclude minorities in higher education admissions. Opponents believe that affirmative action is “reverse discrimination” and that it stigmatizes racial minorities because they were not selected on merit. They point to non-racial alternatives such as the 10 Percent Plan in Texas as viable alternatives.

President George W. Bush has praised the 10 Percent Plan in Texas as an example of affirmative access. The plan does not consider race. Instead, it guarantees undergraduate admissions to the top ten percent of high school graduates to Texas' universities. The bill was authored by the late State Representative Irma Rangel in response to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Hopwood decision that dismantled affirmative action in Texas. President Bush signed the bill when he was Governor of Texas even though only a handful of Republicans supported it in the Texas House of Representatives. Critics say that the plan has not had uniform success and that affirmative action is needed to achieve Pre-Hopwood numbers.

The arguments before the Supreme Court are likely to be spirited and a 5-4 decision is expected. Court observers note that the future of affirmative action in higher education lies in the hands Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. O'Connor is a former mentee of the late Justice Powell, who wrote the opinion which many universities have cited to justify the use of race in college admissions. Observers speculate that because O'Connor considered Powell a man of respect and honor, she is unlikely to completely dismantle affirmative action in higher education. Instead, they note, she will refine Powell's Bakke opinion and hold that diversity is a compelling governmental interest in higher education.

While no one really knows how she will rule, her comment in “The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice,” an upcoming memoir about the U.S. Supreme Court, sheds some light on her personal philosophy. In the book she said, "Diversity is its strength, just as it is the strength of America itself."

Miguel Estrada and Dan Morales share a common bond. They both went to Harvard Law School. They both overcame adversity to achieve their goals. They both have been criticized for not acknowledging their Hispanic heritage. They both have been recently indicted - one political, one criminal.

Miguel Estrada is well qualified to serve as a federal judge. The American Bar Association, which traditionally screens judicial nominees, approved of his nomination and praised him for his legal credentials. Conservatives like him because he embodies the American Dream and will not be a judicial activist. The League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights organization, supports him because Hispanics lack representation in the federal courts.

They view Estrada as a scion of the Honduran aristocracy whose only link to Hispanics is a breakfast taquito. Even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has joined the bandwagon in opposing his nomination. Last week, U.S. Representative Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), amid protesters waving “Viva La Filibuster”, said that Estrada is “not the type of person who represents the Latino community.” Rather, Estrada is viewed by his critics as a pure blood, a Hispanic whose European genome was not intermingled with the gene pool of the indigenous people in Latin America. Critics say that Estrada is not Hispanic enough and fails to identify with issues that affect Hispanic Americans. Furthermore, Estrada is viewed as a stealth conservative who will vote to dismantle programs that have traditionally benefited Hispanics.

Last week, Estrada's opponents won a preliminary battle. U.S. Senate Republicans invoked cloture to end the filibuster over his nomination. 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster. 55 Republicans voted for cloture and 44 opposed. Republicans fell 5 votes short. President George W. Bush called the vote a “disgrace”.

To political insiders, the vote sent a strong message: “Hasta La Vista Miguel!” Republicans did not concede defeat and vowed to salvage the nomination. The White House offered to help, but with a war looming with Iraq, his nomination may take the back seat. The vote by the U.S. Senate was a political indictment that not even Karl Rove, the President's chief political adviser, could overcome.

Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales knows how thankless public service can be. Instead of receiving accolades for bringing the State of Texas the biggest tobacco settlement in history, Morales got indicted. Morales has been charged with using campaign contributions for personal use, backdating contracts to help a friend get $520 million out of the tobacco settlement, tax evasion, and mail fraud. Morales denies all the charges and vows to prevail in a jury trial. However, the “success tax” has been levied and Morales could soon be joining his brother in prison. Morales vows never to seek public office again.

Like Estrada, Morales has his detractors. After he wrote a 1997 opinion which essentially banned all affirmative action programs in Texas, Morales became a pariah among minority groups. Even though the 1997 opinion was symbolically rescinded in 1999 by now U.S. Senator John Cornyn, Morales is still viewed by some as the architect of disaster of higher education in Texas.

Despite the odds, Estrada and Morales may actually prevail in the end. Estrada may be confirmed as a federal judge and Morales may be acquitted of all charges. For now, both men are relying on their alma matter's motto- Veritas (Truth)-to guide them through their perilous journeys.

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and 1441 (2002) of 8 November all the relevant statements of its president,

Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of, that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,

1. Full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant (U.N. Security Council) resolutions remains the imperative objective of the international community. Our priority should be to achieve this peacefully through the inspection regime. The military option should only be a last resort. So far, the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled:

According to resolution 1284, UNMOVIC and IAEA have to submit their program of work for approval of the Council. The presentation of this program of work should be speeded up, in particular the key remaining disarmament tasks to be completed by Iraq pursuant to its obligations to comply with the disarmament requirements of resolution 687 (1991) and other related resolutions.

Resolution 1441 established an intrusive and reinforced system of inspections. In this regard, all possibilities have not yet been explored. Further measures to strengthen inspections could include, as exemplified in the French non-paper previously communicated to the chief inspectors, the following: increase and diversification of staff and expertise; establishment of mobile units designed in particular to check on trucks; completion of the new system of aerial surveillance; systematic processing of data provided by the newly established system of aerial surveillance.

-- The inspectors should be asked to submit the program of work outlining the key substantive tasks for Iraq to accomplish, including missiles/delivery systems, chemical weapons/precursors, biological weapons/material and nuclear weapons in the context of the report due March 1;

-- At any time, according to paragraph 11 of resolution 1441, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director general of the IAEA shall report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspections activities as well as failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations;

To render possible a peaceful solution, inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary. This must include the provision of all the additional and specific information on issues raised by the inspectors as well as compliance with their requests, as expressed in particular in Mr. Blix' letter of Feb. 21, 2003. The combination of a clear program of action, reinforced inspections, a clear timeline and the military build up provide a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 activitie