This should be required reading. This is the definition of common sense. Cheney is the very definition of Presidential. The speech is one for the ages. Send it to everyone you know.
Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s
good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your
longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as
a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of
the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.
I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after
a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to
public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as
vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great
decisions, I don’t think I missed much.
Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense,
naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those
challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had
the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had,
and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man.
Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics
behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.
The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not
here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current
administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand
the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures
that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake.
And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America
have not changed.
Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our
administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the
strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day
of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and
without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.
When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some
respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos,
he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national
security decisions=2 0we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The
point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our
President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And
whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices
should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling
of history.
Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some
quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our
term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm
after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as
we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America …
and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.
That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series
of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993,
they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast
from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the
attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors
on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and
loss we suffered on that day.
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that
had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and
more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks,
if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was
treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact –
crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.
That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for
the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive
strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds
to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a
shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called
“an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy
of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to
round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were
determined to prevent attacks in the first place.
We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone
understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy –
leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan,
we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the
Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who
died bravely and defiantly.
Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t
know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001
looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology,
and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the
anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan,
and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on
our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with
nuclear weapons.
For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As
you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight
of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was
Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still
inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave,
now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post
somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans
remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone
calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their
death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional
speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll
freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from
an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your
responsibilities.
To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror,
we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland
security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won
on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts
and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.
We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to
go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the
United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to
build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to
terrorists.
We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these
policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations …
the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear
program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two
theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and
Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest
burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the
enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike
inside the United States has failed.
So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great
dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the
facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore
needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of
facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but
also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever
conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven
years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals
to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation
against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave
intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital
information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of
the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a
Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect
the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between
al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top
secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and
put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the
pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was
that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda.
It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests
of our country, or the safety of our people.
In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of
the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the
terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through
tough interrogations.
In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs
clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation
program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts
failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing
to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of
their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.
Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of
documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold
exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re
informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on
the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the
truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to
what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying
out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even
considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they
believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the
content of the answers.
Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little
curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of
answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some
are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be
prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense,
and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent,
filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming
administration criminalize t he policy decisions of its predecessors.
Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers
who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of
focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the
administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that
has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that
path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the
American people.
One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation
memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in
that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way
because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources,
methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for
all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points
that are routinely overlooked.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were
ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about
waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh
Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel
Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t
know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did
know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we
didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own
good time, if they answered them at all.
Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon
as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of
interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American
personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to
extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of
our people.
In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and
sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with
the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic
prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations,
and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s
cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair
cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful,
and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few
malevolent men.
Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were
specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training
and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were
given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had
authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew
to stay on the right side of it.
Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation,
it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance
with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions,
leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were
briefed on the program and on the methods.
Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do
it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a
false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired
so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods
applied to a few captured terrorists.
I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are
in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the
United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the
dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and
vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to
past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning
of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought,
and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a
program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved
American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s
more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is
unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would
make the American people less safe.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of
middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing
disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about
some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may
seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in
the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep
you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the
United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United
States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.
When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can
bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a
good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in
the balance.
Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader
misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the
problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance
between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term
“war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So
henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against
terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another
terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will
be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole
Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist
attack.
And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as
there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds
like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same
assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding
some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t
change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing
the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation
and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is
apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On
this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own
party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be
relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for
such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.
The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe
for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will
serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind
that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that
were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it
turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path
back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the
Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the
worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great
danger and regret in the years to come.
In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent
editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as,
quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in
their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major
editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at
random on their way to the movies.
It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged
in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter
most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you
want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war?
Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling
some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that
American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On
this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen
short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a
mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar
fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do.
It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on
ourselves.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely
because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged
failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly
the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being
consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American
people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a
captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is
targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values
than to stop them.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never
lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech
and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel …
our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources
of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical
clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and
they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on
September 11th, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are
today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for
liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences
– and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate
America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had
the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field.
And when they see th e American government caught up in arguments about
interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they
don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had
misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping
for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they
see weakness and opportunity.
What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by
President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But
the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence
we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on
our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist
surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior
official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific
attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put
in place.
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right
to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What
value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows
exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry
about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced
interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be
less20disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11.
It’s almost gone
unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in
the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his
administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to
extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision
off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they
make in the future.
Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national
security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top
secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a
lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that
have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will
be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend
on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why
should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they
act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will
treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and
second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be
briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in
private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official
secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the
unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let
the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice
president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month.
I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the
intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for
national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was
formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification
belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification
power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him
use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good
work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I
am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral
Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in
which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the
al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair
put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later
version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that20tell an
inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA
Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this
program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone
is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National
Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.
If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll
do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in
the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not
gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and
punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat
of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.
For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will
stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of
them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and
afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” –
my mind always goes back to that moment.
To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11,
President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was
to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside
this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible
thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of
what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and
felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the
beginning of the violence.
Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort
to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s
power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had
happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of
a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert
operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we
stayed true to our word.
To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy
with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing
ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the
most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years
without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less
criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.
Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security
was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare,
there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and
wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never
take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims
of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.
For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost
its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as
high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims.
As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing,
they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of
them.
Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a
thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have
served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have
given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the
dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that
this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements,
for granted.
Thank you very much.
UPDATE: Dan Friedman sent me this:
Here's a link to C-SPAN's unedited coverage of the
back-to-back speeches Obama & Cheney gave today on the same subject,
national security. A revealing side-by-side demonstration of character,
competence, patriotism and eloquence. No wonder the Left demonizes Cheney. The
real man must scare them to death.
![Kurdistan](http://<a href="http://northerniraq.info" title="northern iraq"><img src="http://northerniraq.info/northlogo.gif" width="135px" height="68px" alt="northern iraq"><br>northern iraq </a>){kind=link}