Houston is a fitting place to describe the qualities of leadership that will bring true security to our fellow Americans. I say that because our city stands apart in several significant ways.

First, we`re Texans and we posses a deep understanding of freedom’s price. Texans haven`t forgotten that the security necessary for a free society is earned. It’s not guaranteed.

The early citizens of our state won independence against Santa Anna half a day`s march from this very room and we still remember the lasting lesson of their sacrifices.

Every generation will be tested.

Every generation will be called to defend our freedom.

And every generation must summon the courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement.

The second thing that makes us special is that we`re a port city. We, in large part, earn our living by ensuring that Americans can buy the best things from around the globe. We`re a key gateway to the rest of the world.

Our identity, our economic security, and our destiny as a great city all require the United States to remain fully engaged with the world.

Given our reliance on foreign commerce and international business, Houston will only prosper if Americans are trading and traveling.

That`s why I led the fight to give President Bush Trade Promotion Authority and the power to open new markets for American goods and services.

And it was why I fought to give President Clinton the same authority, despite our differences on many other issues.

For Houston, a reclusive America would mean a tragic decline, not only in profits, but it would jeopardize the economic freedom that is essential to self-government.

And more than that, it would mean the abandonment of our destiny to spread the blessings of democracy and defend freedom.

For Houstonians, the strength of our trade and the level of our engagement will determine our economy and our futures.

And as Americans, we must all be prepared to shoulder the responsibilities and obligations that fall to us.

I’m here today to make the case for liberating Iraq. Until Saddam Hussein’s regime topples, our national security will suffer an unwise and unacceptable risk. Saddam must go, and the sooner, the better.

President Bush clearly stated the policy of the United States: Regime change in Iraq. And the longer we wait, the greater the danger.

The foundation of American society rests on a set of enduring, defining values: Faith in God, the sanctity of human life, the existence of right and wrong, and the certain knowledge that we’re all ultimately accountable for our actions.

From our commitment to these timeless truths flow the concepts that we define as democratic values: Free speech; a free press, free elections, the rule of law; and the right to change our government peacefully. These are the bulwarks of liberty.

America has a solemn obligation to stand with countries that share these principles. And we must also aid the brave men and women who are fighting to shed the chains of despotism by lifting their peoples to self-government.

It’s why we stand with the people of Taiwan. Their democracy thrives within a harbor of freedom. But, just across the Taiwan Straits, an authoritarian regime strangles dissent, freedom, and the hopes of more than a billion Chinese men and women.

Our principles compel us to stand with Cuban democratic reformers against Fidel Castro’s brutal dictatorship. That’s why we deny Castro’s engine of repression the added resources he would control if we lifted the embargo.

Our principles mean we stand with the men and women of Israel as they fight to find peace and security under a siege of hostility and terrorist violence.

The cause we champion transcends race and religion. And the greatness of our democracy is demonstrated by the diversity of the people we liberate. We lead the forces of good in the battle between freedom and fanaticism.

The most important step in the war against terrorism wasn`t our military defeat of the Taliban or our disruption of Al Qaeda.

Following years of temporizing and avoidance, the critical turning point in this conflict was President Bush`s decision to focus moral clarity on the real threats facing America.

He said you`re either with us or you`re with the terrorists. And by properly defining this battle, President Bush won broad support from the American people.

They understand what`s at stake. And they strongly back the President`s campaign to destroy the coalition of terror before it strikes again.

In his remarks at West Point, the President forged a national security strategic doctrine for the post-Cold War era.

No longer, he asserted, could America trust the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment to protect us from gathering dangers.

Given the threats we face as a free society, America must preempt threats before they damage our national interests.

This concept of preemption is the key to victory over terrorism.

Much of the opposition to the preemption doctrine is nothing but a campaign to forestall action. It’s driven by a congenital mistrust of American principles and a consistent hostility to American action.

These apologists for idleness would have us believe that consensus is a first principle. But if we can`t agree that terrorists murdering innocent civilians should be actively opposed, this path offers nothing but immobilizing confusion.

While the once great nations of Europe abdicate their responsibilities, danger grows. The spread of devastating weapons accelerates.

And support by terrorism’s state sponsors continues beneath the scenes.

Despite the expanding capabilities of terror regimes and the growth of evil organizations, Europe peddles excuses for inaction.

They demand we accept consensus as a first principle. They wish to direct the enterprise, but retreat seems to be their only war plan.

Make no mistake about it, we’re at war and we don`t have time to dawdle.

This new conflict offers no margin for error. Unlike past wars, when we took no casualties within our borders, if terrorists and rogue regimes dictate the terms, the frontlines of the war on terror will devastate our leading cities.

The American people have thought this through and they’ve decided that the forces of terror must be destroyed.

After last September, America recognized that we`re locked in a battle with evil that could take decades.

Despite the certain heavy costs in lives and treasure, Americans support an active campaign to destroy international terrorism. They`re with the President because they intuitively understand that we have no choice.

The question is not whether to go to war, for war has already been thrust upon us. The only choice is between victory and defeat. And let’s be clear about this, we must choose victory, a victory that cannot be secured at a bargaining table.

Knowing all this, we favor the hard path of action over the hollow comfort of complacency.

This fight is no longer about reacting to the attacks on New York and Washington. It’s about stopping killers from robbing more widows and orphans of their loved ones. It`s about preventing attacks on Chicago, Miami, Seattle, and yes, Houston.

Who doubts that terrorists seek tools to do grave harm to the United States? And, once a madman like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, there`s no telling when an American city will be targeted at his direction or with his support.

And so we must move ahead. Despite weeks of feverish hand wringing over the refusal by many to acknowledge the overwhelming supposed missing body of evidence against Iraq’s dictator, the case is self-evident.

Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man in the world today. We say that because he`s used chemical weapons against his own people. He`s invaded his neighbors.

And he concentrates the energy of his regime on developing and manufacturing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Unrepentant for past crimes and ungoverned by reason or morality, he relentlessly seeks tools to commit infinitely worse offenses against humanity.

You know, too often, words are used indiscriminately and their true meaning is lost. But this much is certain: Saddam Hussein is evil. He’s evil because of what he’s done. He’s evil because of what he intends to do.

Many observers act as if threats from Saddam’s regime emerged suddenly, but his terrorist pedigree is long and it’s fully documented.

Schooled in brutality during his years leading the Iraqi secret police, Saddam Hussein holds power through cunning, cruelty, and constant purges.

A great bloodbath was the unholy blessing announcing his regime. And it’s only through continuous murder and terror directed against the Iraqi people that this tyrant keeps power.

Under Saddam, Iraq is a terror state. In wars of aggression, Iraq used chemical weapons against its neighbors. Iraq invaded Kuwait, brutalized its people, sacked its cities and unleashed an ecological apocalypse as Saddam’s army was driven out.

He agreed to drop Iraq’s entire nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. He agreed to drop his long-range missile program. And he agreed to unconditional inspections under the Gulf War cease-fire agreement. But Saddam broke every promise.

He didn’t disarm. He harassed and denied access to UN inspectors whenever they approached the truth. He manufactured Anthrax. He made VX nerve gas.

And he applied the substantial resources of his country to develop nuclear weapons and stockpile chemical and biological weapons.

He used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds and killed 5,000 people in 1998.

He persecutes and murders religious leaders in Southern Iraq. He represses Iraqi minorities in Southern Iraq by razing villages.

For twelve years, he has fired at American aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones.

He drove UN inspectors out in 1998. And they haven’t been back since.

In 1993, he tried to assassinate former President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. He attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the Gulf War and threatens Israel with weapons of mass destruction today.

Over the past 30 years, Saddam’s militarism has been a constant danger to Middle East peace.

Saddam is aggressively marshalling Iraq’s financial and technical resources to develop a nuclear weapon. What more do we need to know?

And, unless America stops him, Saddam will soon have nuclear weapons. Failure would immensely strengthen a vicious predator and would make the costs of overturning his regime far too high.

We’re not going to stand for it.

Anyone doubting the gravity of this threat should look at the record. Twice before, Saddam was far closer to acquiring nuclear weapons than our experts had anticipated.

An escaped official from his nuclear weapons program said we have less than five years.

The costs of inaction are unacceptable.

I defy the architects of complacency, to explain to America, a single instance in which a strategy of international neglect tamed a militaristic regime.

It’s never worked before--it won’t work now. Saddam must be replaced.

And it raises a larger issue: Defeating Iraq is far from a diversion in the war on terror. Defeating Saddam Hussein is a defining measure of whether we will wage the war on terrorism fully and effectively.

Regime change in Iraq is a central goal of the war on terror. It`s vital because a war on terrorism that left the world`s leading purveyor and practitioner of terror in power would be a palpable failure.

Our most dangerous potential blunder is to wage a half-hearted effort that fails to defeat and dislodge our most committed enemies.

The idea that UN inspections can keep nuclear weapons from Saddam is a fraud. His regime makes a science of denial, deception, and deceit.

Iraq has grown adept at burying its weapons programs deep underground and hiding laboratories within the civilian infrastructure of his country.

As experience teaches, tyrants and rogue regimes support terrorism to escape accountability.

We can be sure that our potential enemies are watching. Future enemies of freedom will also support terrorism, if we don`t defeat the current terrorist organizations.

Offers to allow UN arms inspectors back into Iraq aren’t to be taken seriously.

It`s only the disingenuous dissembling of a dictator trying to short-circuit our resolve.

His cynical, counterfeit concessions would be laughable if they weren`t treated as legitimate by some misguided observers.

But those who counsel granting Saddam the latest in an endless cycle of last chances are the same consorts of complacency who foolishly opposed liberating Kuwait.

Their reluctance to confront evil only empowered Saddam to prowl the Middle East, aiding terrorist groups and developing weapons of mass destruction.

They were wrong twelve years ago. They were wrong to claim that an impotent inspection regime could keep terror weapons from Saddam. And they`re wrong now.

But President Bush has it exactly right. Only a regime change in Iraq can keep nuclear weapons from Saddam`s control.

President Bush will come to Congress before Saddam’s hour of reckoning. And he`ll decide when it`s time for action.

Our commander-in-chief’s timetable must be dictated solely by national security considerations. Other concerns are simply irrelevant.

But when that hour arrives, I’ll lead the effort to provide President Bush the unified support of the House of Representatives.

The House will be there for the President because he’s right. America can’t wait. We can’t afford the risk. Saddam must go.

As vexing as our problems are abroad, the impertinence of some government officials within the executive branch only magnifies our difficulties.

Debate within a democracy is vital to freedom. We welcome passionate advocates with firmly held views. But men and women serving within an administration must take their instructions from the President, the commander-in-chief, and they must carry them out.

The U.S. State Department would do well to remember that it answers to the President of the United States, not the European Union.

The threats terrorism poses to every free society should naturally create a broad coalition dedicated to decisive action and the destruction of every terrorist organization and its sponsors.

Unfortunately, among freedom`s natural defenders, moral clarity is in short supply. Even as other powers evade their own duty to safeguard freedom and confront tyranny, we must stand firm.

The nations across the Atlantic, countries with ample experience in the perils of appeasement are unwilling or unable to summon the resolve to confront gathering evil.

These countries reflexively oppose any exercise of American power unless it`s summoned to liberate the besieged capitals of a vanquished Europe.

Europe stands paralyzed because European leaders seem unable to grasp a very fundamental principle: There’s no moral equivalence between those defending freedom and the terrorists and tyrants who seek to deny it--first to their own people, later to others.

There’s no doubt that if New York had been spared the first blow and September 11 had instead hit Paris or Berlin, America`s war on terror would have gone forward unchanged.

We would’ve acted, and the American people would’ve demanded action because they see the obvious: September 11 was an attack upon freedom everywhere.

Before I close, let me address a few of the arguments made against the President’s decision to replace the autocratic regime in Baghdad.

Many of those questioning the President’s policy have served America well for many years. And I respect their service to our country. But I couldn’t disagree more strongly about the grave costs of avoiding a confrontation with Iraq.

Toppling Saddam would, they say, “seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

Ladies and gentlemen, these critics are dead wrong.

Removing Saddam from power and liberating the Iraqi people would do more to advance the war against terror than any step we’ve taken yet.

Removing Saddam would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state sponsor of terror: “Shape up, because the price of subsidizing terror is now more than you can afford.”

Returning their government to the people of Iraq would signal democratic reformers around the region that the United States is deeply committed to expanding freedom.

It would demonstrate that we stand ready to help any willing country discover the blessings of self-government.

And, by assisting reformers in Iraq to govern themselves, we would show that the United States has no intention of ruling in place of fallen dictators.

But most importantly, ending Saddam’s dictatorship would deprive terrorist groups of refuge, training, support, and access to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

We would be fools to require American standards of criminal evidence in making the case against state sponsors of terror including Saddam Hussein`s Iraq.

Our challenge is clear. Iraq’s vile dictator is a central power in the Axis of Evil. President Bush is committed to ending the threat from Saddam Hussein’s terror regime.

Only regime change can destroy Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Only by taking them out of his hands can we be certain that nuclear, biological or chemical weapons won’t wind up in the hands of terrorists.

I offer my full support to applying the Bush preemption doctrine to Iraq. The President needs to know that the Congress stands behind his campaign to protect the American people.

As Americans, we`re not governed by fear and appeasement.

As Americans, we inherit a higher obligation than placating contemporary opinion.

As Americans, we reject the illusion of greener pastures offered by moral equivocators.

As Americans, we offer unceasing hostility to terrorists, tyrants, and every system of oppression.

Because, as Americans, we`re born to a special destiny.

We won`t evade the defense of freedom.

We won`t take counsel of our fears.

We won`t seek shelter in the naïve comfort of misguided hopes.

And we won`t shrink from the mission before us.

For in the last analysis, we`ll answer, not to the fickle whims of the international community, but to posterity.

© Copyright 2001-2008 John Hawkins hit counter