Posted on 11/02/2005 9:33:01 AM PST by Maceman
The timing was interesting. The bombing commenced on December 17, the SAME DAY that the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on the Articles of Impeachment.
The objective was to delay the vote until the end of the term, so that the vote would be taken up in the new term where there would be more Democrats seated (and thus a greater likelihood that Clinton would win the vote and avoid impeachment).
With great self-righteousness, the Democratic House leadership publicly called for a postponement of the impeachment proceedings, arguing that it would be inappropriate to impeach the president while our troops were in harms way, and when it was crucial that all Americans show their support for the President during hostilities.
The House agreed to postpone the vote, but only for one day, and it was held on December 18. As soon as it became evident that Clinton's ploy would not derail the proceedings, the bombing campaign was called off.
Incidentally, Congress NEVER voted to allow Clinton to undertake this bombing.
So now that the Democrats are falling all over themselves screaming that Bush lied about the reasons to invade Iraq, let's all take every opportunity to remind the American people of the Democrats' self-serving and hypocritical support of Clinton's outrageous action.
Amazing how many little things - and big things like Serb-Croat - people forget when it comes to Klinton. This Iraq air-strike stuff is the most-forgotten! Next is the little bombings on Afghan. and Sudan. Then maybe Kosovo, something we got more involved w/than we ever needed to be since there was absolutely no US interest in it. Oh, that's OK, cuz we were helping Moslems.
Now are the RATS admitting that Slick was lying about WMD?
If the determination of the Government of the United States was that Iraq had WMDs in December 1998, when was that finding withdrawn. Most of the folks that provided the intelligence for Clinton's finding were in the Intelligence Community when Bush launched the Battle of Iraq based in large part on that intelligence.
One of my favorites:
Did the President Lie about Iraq?
By Bobby Eberle
September 27, 2004
In every presidential campaign, there is an issue which rises to the surface and dominates the debate. In 1992, it was the economy. In 1980, it was inflation, unemployment and a tarnished national image. In 2004, it is the war on terror, and in particular, the Democrats are attempting to make this election a referendum on the war in Iraq. Time and time again, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has said his opponent has "misled" the American people on Iraq. At the Democratic National Convention, President Jimmy Carter made the same claim. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has gone even further, saying that the president "lied" to the American people about weapons of mass destruction.
The question thus remains: did the president lie about Iraq?
Some time ago, while speaking from the Oval Office, the president looked into the eyes of the American public and said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
The president added that the purpose of this military action was "to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world." The president explained that Saddam Hussein "must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."
During the course of his Oval Office address, the president said that other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, but with Saddam, there is one big difference. "He has used them," the president said. "Not once, but repeatedly."
"Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq," the president explained.
Setting an ominous tone, the president declared, "The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
So... is the president lying? According to the Democrats, led by Sen. Kerry and Terry McAuliffe, because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, the president must be lying to the American public. It is the centerpiece of their presidential campaign. It doesn't seem to make a difference that information on Iraq's WMD program was supported by the CIA, Great Britain's MI6, and Russian Intelligence operatives. No, people simply compare the president's public statements and the lack of current WMDs as evidence that the president lied.
Continuing with our examination of the president's actual statements, the president noted that by working through the United Nations, "The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance."
"I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments," the president said. "And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."
The president added, "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance."
Based on these words, some Democrats may already be feeling that churning in their stomachs -- the feeling of a hawkish president building a misleading case against Iraq in order to rush the country to war. But before judgment is passed, a more complete review of the president's statements is in order.
In taking questions from reporters following his Oval Office address, the president was asked whether military action was the right thing to do. "This was the right thing for the country," the president said. "We have given Saddam Hussein chance after chance to cooperate. We said in November that this was the last chance. We acted swiftly because we were ready, thanks to the very fine work of the Defense Department in leaving our assets properly deployed. We had the strong support of the British."
In looking forward regarding the situation in Iraq, the president added, "I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses. So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."
In talking about regime change, did the president "show his hand?" Did he want Saddam out of power simply for personal reasons, perhaps to the extent that he would lie to the American people about Iraq's weapons programs?
Regardless of the intelligence gathered and studied by American sources regarding Iraq's WMD programs and the fact that conclusions were supported by both British and Russian intelligence sources, the question still remains as to whether the president lied. Based on the strong and definitive statements cited here by the president, he must be called to account before the American people. The brave servicemen and women who are called into harm's way by the president of the United States must have confidence that their commander-in-chief is acting on credible information and not "lying" to the American public.
Thus, President Clinton, please come clean. Were you lying about Iraq and WMDs? The American people have a right to know.
---
Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.
How many times in total did Slick Willy "wag the dog"?
Unfortunately, Mr. Eberle did not raise the issue of the timing, in connection with the impeachment vote.
IMHO, that is the MOST important aspect of Clinton's action, and I have NOT seen it mentioned anywhere since the current war in Iraq began.
Yeah. It was bombs away when The Stainmaster was in power. Anytime, any reason. No problem! But now that a Republican might defend America from terrorists? Well, you *know* that's got to be a lie.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."
I wonder if Iraq really did have a Nuclear Program back in 1998?
No. Read my comment #1. That's why.
Not that Saddam wasn't a threat, but does ANYBODY believe Clinton would have bombed Baghdad but for the scheduled impeachment vote?
Clinton thought that threat was so urgent that he had to act on the very day of the vote, without even getting congressional approval (or even informing Congress?
Didn't Clinton administration also use an old address and bomb a Chinese publication - even though an up to date one was available from the Internet?
Sorry - I left off the sarcasm tag.
"But Clinton destroyed all of the WMDs in this bombing and Bush new there were any WMDs anymore."
That was Val's specialty....right? Or was the U.S. military used by the Dums to get Saddamn to up his bribery payments ? So many questions, so little time.
No. It was the Chinese embassy, and I believe that was during the 78-day Kosovo bombing. BTW, Wesley Clark was in charge of that operation.
True, but it should also be noted that those stupid military campaigns undertaken by the Clinton administration received overwhelming support from many so-called "neo-conservative" Republicans as well.
On Fox - Dayside right nowSenator Pat Roberts has brough this out. I was wondering if We would ever hear this from ANY News source. Fox to me has been tainted to me, ever since the election. I listen to them with caution.
What's so hypocritical and dangerous about the media is that they not only helped perpetuate much of the Saddam/WMD stories for the benefit of a Democrat president, they ignored even more outrageous instances of intelligence failures and perhaps manipulation on the part of the Clinton administration.
I just don't recall the media (or democrats) concern when the Clinton administration "accidentally" bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, killing several employees, supposedly because of antiquated maps. As you mention here, I also don't recall the outrage when Clinton targeted the Sudan's largest pharmaceutical plant, destroying that countries most important drug producer.
Ironically, the NY Times was one of those papers that helped perpetuate this Clinton myth with one of their own stories entitled, "U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan" (August 1998). And contrary to later "media" reports, this was more than just an "aspirin factory" since it produced much of this countries needed medicines for Malarya and Tuberculosis. Not only were Clinton's claims that Al-Shifra was a VX-nerve producing facility proven false, the US was forced to pay a multimillion dollar settlement to its owner...but many probably didn't even know that thanks to our media.
From the Clinton/intelligence claims of "mass-graves" and genocide in Kosovo to the mischaracterization of Racak...which was the pretext for war against the Serbs, there was intelligence failure after failure that for some reason the media just wasn't interested in. Unlike their sudden concern for both soldier and civilian casualties in Iraq, the media never ran a running body-count during Clinton's (mis)adventures. And again contrary to mediacrat opinion, there was a lot to count, beginning with Somalia...to Haiti to Bosnia to Afghanistan to Sudan to Iraq (on 4 seperate occasions) to Kosovo and Serbia.
Sadly, it is no longer just about what the media chooses or refuses to tell us; it is now about the very content and context of their stories. From the Kay and Duelfer Reports on WMDs to the Butler and Senate Intel Reports (discrediting Joe Wilson)....and even the 9/11 Commission Report, the media has either ignored or totally misprepresented the facts in each of these investigations to advance their (and the Democrats) anti-Bush/GOP agenda. This is no longer just a biased media; they have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, using the power of the press and their 1st Amendment privledges (and Shield Laws) to advance an agenda, even if it means lying to the American people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.