January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
It is really easy for Bush to refute the RATS in their attempt to rewrite history. Anything they say looks like they are going French. The statements and actions taken by Clinton squarely put the intelligence sources with the Clinton administration
What is so dangerous for the RATS is that they have to rely on Bush's continued success in keeping terrorism off of our shores, one attack (or even a close call) on this country will again focus the people on the actual dangers of terrorism.
What Bush must do is be more convincing in explaining why Iraq is an important battle in the larger war of maneuver.
It was hilarious to see some RAT sock puppets saying that the Amman attack on the hotels was an attack on America then the host saying would you rather that attack be in Amman or in New York?
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Thank you, Glenn Beck!
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
It's strategery. The Dims have had their say, spewing out nothing but lies. From now until the midterms next year, their flip-flops and lies will be exposed, and they'll be on the ropes and on the defensive the whole time.
Just to throw another bomb into the fire- does anyone remember this-
"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
So then the Democrats say "Oh, that was just Clinton telling lies" and we say... ? Citing Bubba as a source is fraught with peril.
Democrats, beware the coming of the Rovian storm!
Strategery at it's finest!
Feb. 17, 1998, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Monday, July 12, 2004
To hear controversial filmmaker Michael Moore tell it in his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11," the only government officials who knew in advance that al-Qaida was a threat to the United States were members of the Bush administration.
At least they're consistent," Moore writes. "They never needed to see a single weapon of mass destruction before sending our kids off to die."
"Every single fact I state in [the movie] is the absolute and irrefutable truth," Moore says in a blog on his Web site. He goes on to take another jab at the administration after hearing White House spokesman Dan Bartlett describe the movie as "outrageously false," even though Bartlett said he had yet to see it.
Moore and other members of the political left, none of whom have ever been fans of the Bush administration, have been chanting endlessly to anyone who will listen that the White House was wrong to invade Iraq because, they say, WMD have not been found and Saddam Hussein was not allied with al-Qaida in any way.
Even one-time liberal supporters of war in Iraq – including Democrat Sens. John Kerry of Mass., the party's likely presidential nominee, and Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader – have begun taking jabs at the administration regarding its Iraq war policies, though they voted for the invasion based on the very information offered by the administration.
And why? Because their political predecessors and soulmates in the Clinton administration had made exactly the same cases against Iraq, though President Clinton was never strong enough politically to wage full-scale war against America's terrorist enemies.
Early Admissions
Even as recently as July 6, mainstream media leaders whose editorial positions routinely lean to the political left discounted the administration's claims regarding Iraq.
For example, in its July 7 edition, The New York Times – in a story aimed at refuting claims by Vice President Dick Cheney that he had access to better intelligence regarding Iraq than the federal 9/11 panel appointed to investigate the attacks – reminded readers of the so-called "party line," noting, "A report issued by the commission's staff last month found that there did not appear to have been a 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and the terrorist network, a finding that appeared to undermine a justification cited by President Bush and Mr. Cheney for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein."
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, which were quickly linked to al-Qaida, President Bush and key administration officials made assertions that there were not-so-tenuous, if not completely obvious, connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. The administration also said Saddam was attempting to build weapons of mass destruction.
Administration officials have maintained ever since that their early assertions were true. "Fifteen months ago, Saddam's regime was an enemy of America and the civilized world; today Iraq's government is an ally of both," Bush said in remarks delivered in Turkey June 28, the day power was transferred in Iraq.
"Fifteen months ago, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism; today Iraq's leaders, with our support, are systematically fighting terrorists across their country. Fifteen months ago, we faced the threat of a dictator with a history of using weapons of mass destruction; today the dictator is a threat to no one from the cell he now occupies."
But there were reasons why the Bush White House made the connections – most notably because the prior Clinton administration had done the same thing, for the same reasons.
While blame has been placed on Bush and Cheney for failing to stop the attacks, in fairness it must be noted that the president, in office less than eight months on Sept. 11, 2001, had still not assembled a complete governing team. Many Clinton holdovers, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director George Tenet, the backbone agencies for the nation's intelligence, were still in office and still operating their departments the same way they had for Clinton.
Similar Claims
Also, according to an increasing number of published accounts, it was likely that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were getting much the same information about Iraq and al-Qaida as Bill Clinton and Al Gore had received, if for no other reason than because both administrations were making similar claims.
One such report was published by The Weekly Standard in its July 5-12 issue. Stephen F. Hayes, author of the new book "The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America," says Clinton administration officials in the late 1990s and beyond were making regular references to Saddam, his WMD programs and association with al-Qaida.
For example, Hayes writes that just two years ago, in July 2002, former Clinton State Department spokesman James Rubin hosted a PBS documentary that examined "the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein."
"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction," Rubin said. "Now there are suggestions he is working with al-Qaida, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."
As Hayes notes, Rubin – who is now John Kerry's senior presidential campaign adviser – said earlier this month on a cable talk show that he wasn't responsible, as the host, for producing the content of the program.
"Fair enough," Hayes writes. "But on the PBS program, Rubin spoke in a manner that suggested he did, in fact, believe the evidence presented by [the show's producer, investigative filmmaker Gwynne] Roberts, pressing one interview subject about the possibility of Saddam's passing weapons of mass destruction to 'the al Qaeda people in the film he's already trained.'"
Clinton-Gore 'Amnesia'
Hayes goes on to point out that the most "striking case of political amnesia" goes to the top two Clintonites – former Vice President Gore and the man himself, Bill Clinton.
On June 24, "Today" show co-host Katie Couric, not known for her tenacity of questioning regarding Democrats and liberals, interviewed Clinton and asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?"
Clinton, of course, didn't know. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."
The same day, Gore – in a venomous speech at Georgetown University School of Law – accused Bush of "intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. If he is not lying, if he genuinely believes that, that makes them [sic] unfit in battle against al-Qaida. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge?"
Really?
Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:
"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
More Evidence
The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 Commission that the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaida leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.
Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) "tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other – sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' – and that there were indications that within Sudan when al-Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons."
Within several months, al-Qaida bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaida connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
On Aug. 24, 1998, a "senior intelligence official" was made available by the administration and cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as the basis for the attack.
A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaida) connection: "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program."
Five days later, Hayes notes, U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of "direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden" and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
"You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case."
That is, unless you're the Bush administration trying to make the same points.
More Admissions of Iraqi-Osama Guilt
Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted that the administration "had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity."
"Other products were made at al Shifa," he continued. "But we have seen such dual-use plants before – in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan."
Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, interview that the U.S. was "sure" Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."
Even Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, confirmed the association between Iraq and Sudan in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Hayes writes. But many of these officials now disclaim any prior knowledge of any Baghdad-Khartoum-bin Laden connection.
Baghdad Tattled
The regime of Saddam, however, may have disclosed some of the most damning evidence to date.
According to the New York Times, which has never editorialized its belief in an al Qaida-Iraq connection, has disclosed details of an Iraqi intelligence paper that discusses the Baghdad-bin Laden "relationship," as well as plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the latter nation the birthplace of bin Laden.
According to the Times, the document states that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." The Iraqi document refers to the period of the first Clinton term and has been "authenticated by the U.S. government."
"Taken together with other evidence of the close relationship between al-Qaeda and the Sudanese government, the information in the Times article makes it less likely that Iraq and al-Qaeda were unwitting allies," Hayes writes.
The Iraqi-al-Qaida plan to disrupt the House of Saud did not end when bin Laden left the oil-rich kingdom in 1996. Hayes notes a top-secret CIA report summarized in a Pentagon memo sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2003: "The Saudi Arabian National Guard went on a kingdom-wide heightened state of alert in late December 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al-Qaeda in attacking U.S. and U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia."
Absolutely--and that he's throwing it right back in the face of Clinton is especially delicious, given his recent comments.
Yes, this is great news. But I hope it's not a dollar short or a day late. Wish he had started this, low key, right after his reelection last Nov. And then paced the tone of the rhetoric based on the shriek level coming from the RATS.
Now it's gotten so bad he has no choice but to go full bore. And that may put off some of his base.
But, better late than never I suppose.
Weapons of Mass Deception
Charles R. Smith
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
snip
Lying About Nukes
However, if lying about weapons is still high on your list, then please note that there is a mountain of evidence that the Clinton administration lied about North Korean missile and nuclear weapons development. The White House lies were executed in order to cover up Clinton's foreign policy mistakes in Asia and his personal opposition to a national missile defense.
The Clinton effort to lie about the North Korean threat included pressuring the CIA to issue false and misleading data. For example, a declassified CIA report supplied by the Clinton administration to Congress estimated that North Korea would require 10-15 years to develop an ICBM capable of delivering a chemical, biological or nuclear warhead.
The 1998 Rumsfeld report, however, concluded that "There is evidence that North Korea is working hard on the Taep'o-dong 2 (TD-2) ballistic missile. The status of the system's development cannot be determined precisely. Nevertheless, the ballistic missile test infrastructure in North Korea is well developed. Once the system is assessed to be ready, a test flight could be conducted within six months of a decision to do so."
In addition, the Rumsfeld report concluded that "light-weight variations of the TD-2 could fly as far as 10,000 km, placing at risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin."
In August 1998, Clinton's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Shalikashvili went to Capitol Hill and testified under oath that North Korea did not have the capability to launch long-range missiles.
Two weeks later, North Korea fired its Tae Po Dong missile over Japan, dropping a simulated nuclear warhead off the U.S. coast.
Clinton continued to maintain the fiction that North Korea was not developing nuclear weapons, lying to America and our Asian allies right up to his last days in office.
"For several years, we have been working with our East Asian allies to improve relations with North Korea in a way that strengthens peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. We have made substantial progress, including the 1994 Agreed Framework, which froze North Korea's production of plutonium for nuclear weapons under ongoing international inspections," noted Clinton in a December 2000 press release.
http://tinyurl.com/b32av
Beautiful, simply beautiful. I might even consider donating to the Pubbies again if I can earmark the
funds for these adds!
Clinton signed into National Policy a bill whose sole objective was "regime change in Iraq".
Ignore a bunch of lying liberal media, nobody believes them anymore anyway.
Speak the truth one time, and anyone who doesn't get it will be left behind to reap the benefit of their errors. This isn't Kindegarten, and we do not need to babysit these people.
Let them suffer and let them learn.
Or not.
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ADDRESS
December 16, 1998
The following is a full transcript of President Clinton's address to the American people on the US-led attack on Iraq.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: 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.
President ClintonI 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 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
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 reports 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 crippled 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 adviser -- 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.
President ClintonAt 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 advisers, 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.
******
P. S. And don't pay any attention to the BLUE DRESS!
While the Democrats are screaming about why Bush invaded Iraq, it might be helpful to recall Clinton's justification for undertaking his 4-day bombing of Baghdad back in 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.
Sen. Cornyn Exposes Dems on Senate Floor [Nailed The RATS On Their Lies]
Here's more info and a strategery....
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/rboyd_20051107.html
These bastids are praying for enough seats in 2006 to push for impeachment. They've gone for broke and can't turn back now. Sane America knows that they can't be trusted to defend the nation... only a major Republican embarrassment(impeachment) would give them a shot.
>>>It's about damn time Bush started fighting back!<<<
"About time" is a major-league understatement. Bush waits until his poll numbers are in the 30's, and then he says what he should have been saying all along -- what conservatives have been screaming for him to say? This is so irrational it borders on intentional.