Posted on 11/02/2005 9:33:01 AM PST by Maceman
TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT'S BRIEFING ON IRAQI AIRSTRIKES.
Good evening.
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.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first seven and a half years ago at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. 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 international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, "a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors."
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. 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.
Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM report concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
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.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security advisor -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. 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.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America. SALON | Dec. 17, 1998
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.