Please deposit additional pharmaceuticals for reply.
Posted on 07/19/2003 4:10:41 PM PDT by Wolfstar
[ED. NOTE: Following are excerpts from the 1998 Congressional Record. They are EXTREMELY revealing as to who was wringing their hands over the danger posed to U.S. security by Iraq and its WMD just five years ago, and who was calling Iraq’s actions that year a "crisis." These debates led to passage of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, WHICH MADE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ UNITED STATES POLICY.
Please bear with this long post. It’s crucial ammunition for anyone who wants clear, unambiguous evidence of Democrat hypocrisy on Iraq and WMD.]
[BEGIN EXCERPTS: Click link above to search the full Congressional Record. Also note that, where used, bold and upper case emphasis is Wolfstar's.]
Feb. 4, 1998, Message from President Clinton to the Senate:
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States...[The presidential message concluded with this assessment:]
The policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. (Signed William J. Clinton, President of the United States)
Feb. 25, 1998, Tom DASCHLE:
[ED. NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more useless "agreement" with Hussein, Daschle took the floor to gush like a schoolgirl about that "achievement." The reader is advised to pay close attention to Daschle’s words here. This is a declarative statement. He does not use modifying words like "alleged" or "reported." What we should demand is an answer to what intelligence Daschle relied on when he declared that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.]
If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; second, to find and destroy the missiles that could deliver these weapons; and, third, to institute a system for long-term monitoring to make sure Iraq doesn’t do it again.
The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq’s full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. So again, it will be diplomacy backed up by force. So long as diplomacy works, force will not be necessary. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. So, let there be no mistake. This is not a question of breathing room. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. It will be there.
So, Mr. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours.
[ED. NOTE: That "great progress" was just ducky, wasn’t it?! Hussein threw the inspectors out that same year and nothing was done about it until this year.]
Feb. 25, 1998, Bob KERREY:
Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to remove this regime.
[ED. NOTE: Kerrey had an article from the Jan. 18, 1998 London Sunday Times read into the Record. Headline: "Saddam Tested Anthrax on Human Guinea Pigs," by Marie Colvin and Uzi Mahnaimi. The article included the following paragraphs:]
Evidence has emerged that Saddam Hussein...has had prisoners tied to stakes and bombarded with anthrax in brutal human experiments with his biological and chemical armory.
Dozens of prisoners are believed to have died in agony during a secret program of military research designed to produce potent NEW weapons of mass destruction.
Madeleine Albright...said Saddam was "tightening the noose around himself." She added, "By not letting this inspection team go forward, in almost a strange way it’s almost as if he has come close to saying, 'Okay, you caught me.' " [ED. NOTE: Was this woman worse than useless, or what?!]
[ED NOTE: Why do the Dems and their media shills need reminding that it was against this backdrop, and the subsequent 2001 hijackings/anthrax attacks on U.S. soil — indeed, attacks on the U.S. Capitol; the first since 1812 — that President Bush evaluated his options re the Hussein regime? Every single one of those scummy Dem presidential wannabes from the senate knows this, but that doesn’t prevent them from pretending to be outraged at phony claims that the Bush Administration "hyped" intelligence. Again, we ought to demand answers to what intelligence Clinton and company relied on in 1998 when they changed U.S. policy toward Iraq from one of containment to one of regime change. Check out Dorgan’s statements below:]
Mar. 12, 1998, Byron DORGAN:
Iraq possesses a chemical weapons program and a biological weapons program. Its chemical stockpile contained 40,000 chemical weapons munitions; 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents; and 8 delivery systems.
Iraq’s biological weapons arsenal included 8,500 liters of anthrax; 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin; and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. This program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which Iraq is a party.
[ED NOTE: Dorgan presents exhibits in support of a call for an International War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq. The exhibits detail the crimes of Saddam Hussein and Iraqi leaders.]
The most enormous crime that Iraqi leaders have committed was the genocidal Anfal campaign against Kurds in rural areas of northern Iraq. Relying on over 300 interviews, field work in Iraqi Kurdistan, and forensic material, and using a captured cache of official Iraqi documents, Human Rights Watch has concluded that the Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds involved the "systematic, deliberate murder of at least 50,000, and possibly as many as 100,000, Kurds." The campaign involved the destruction of thousands of Kurdish villages, and the murder, disappearance, extermination by chemical weapons, or forcible resettlement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds.
[The third category is] Iraqi violations of treaties and UN resolutions.
These chemical weapons attacks, both in the war against Iran and internally against the people of Kurdistan, raise the issue of Iraq’s entire program to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear weapons — and the means to deliver them. These weapons programs...show a continuing pattern of treaty violations and disregard for Security Council resolutions.
According to the [Clinton] Administration white paper, Iraq’s biological weapons activities included producing 8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. Iraq also prepared biological weapons munitions, including 25 Scud missile warheads (5 anthrax, 16 botulinum toxin, 4 alfatoxin), 157 aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers. Iraq researched other ways of using biological weapons, including 155mm artillery shells, artillery rockets, a MiG-21 drone, and aerosol generators.
Lastly, Iraq has confessed to a nuclear weapons development program, but again only after Husayn Kamil’s defection in 1995. According to the white paper, "Iraq has admitted experimenting with seven uranium enrichment techniques..."
The Security Council has concluded that...Iraq’s weapons development activities are "material breaches of its obligations" under the cease-fire resolution; and Iraq’s failure to comply with the safeguards agreement "constitutes a breach of its international obligations" under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
[ED NOTE: It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that the UN Security Council declared Iraq to be in "material breach" five years ago. Yet that Leftist cabal led by Annan, Chriac and Schroeder refused to stand by its own findings while it was putting Bush and Blair through the wringer earlier this year. We ought to be demanding answers as to why. I am far, far more interested in learning the truth about this than I am about one sentence in the State of the Union speech.]
Mar. 12, 1998, Jesse HELMS:
Secretary Albright sent the message in its purest form: "Saddam does not have a menu of choices, he has one: Iraq must comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions and provide U.N. inspectors with the unfettered access they need to do their job."
[ED NOTE: That’s the Clinton Administration for you — speak loudly and carry a wet noodle. Their neglect — yes, neglect — of foreign policy storm building on their watch should be one of the most profound scandals in American history. Yet they are getting a pass so far. Why?]
Mar. 12, 1998, Joe BIDEN:
No one should doubt for a moment the resolve of the United States to respond with force, if necessary, to Iraq’s continued flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with.
Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein and curtail his ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind...Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, our nation.
[ED NOTE: So, Joe, want to explain to us why our national security would be seriously compromised in 1998 but not in 2003, post 9/11 and the anthrax attacks? Or do you need to plagiarize something before coming up with an answer?!]
Time has run out. If Iraq does not comply immediately and unconditionally with United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors, I believe that President Clinton will have no choice but to order the use of air power. [ED. NOTE: Ironic, isn’t it, that time really ran out five years later under a different president.]
In recent weeks, several questions and criticisms have been raised with respect to President Clinton’s policy.
Questions have been asked about our objectives. The objectives have been defined precisely. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Hussein’s capacity to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbors. [ED. NOTE: Not eliminate, but curtail and delay. Leave the mess for someone else to clean up.]
We should all hope for a genuine diplomatic solution to this stand-off, but no one should doubt our resolve to use force if it becomes necessary.
First and foremost, an Iraq left free to develop weapons of mass destruction would pose a grave threat to our national security. [ED NOTE: Again, one must ask the question why in 1998 but not in 2003?]
Mar. 12, 1998, Joe LIEBERMAN:
...there are ultimately times of conflict abroad that involve the vital interests of the United States, as the current situation in Iraq does, no Democrats, no Republicans, only Americans standing side by side in support of the Commander in Chief and all those Americans in uniform who serve under him.
That, I hope, is the message that will be heard in Baghdad, most importantly. If the Commander in Chief of the United States decides that military force is necessary to be employed against Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Members of the U.S. Senate will stand strongly behind him and behind those American personnel in uniform who will carry out that policy.
...though there may be disagreements in this Chamber on partisan lines, that, again, when challenged, when it comes to America’s vital interests abroad, we will stand together above party lines. [ED. NOTE: Yeah, right! Spin us another yarn, Joe. Seems that "standing together" stuff goes out the window when it gets in the way of your personal ambitions.]
...there are consequences, which is the threat that Saddam Hussein will use those weapons of mass destruction THAT WE KNOW HE HAS; that he will use the ballistic missile, the delivery system capacity to deliver those weapons of mass destruction that WE KNOW HE HAS IN RUDIMENT AND IS DEVELOPING EVEN FURTHER.
...Senator Daschle [said] — unlike other leaders in the world, including dictatorial leaders of rogue nations who possess weapons of mass destruction, this particular leader, Saddam Hussein, has used those weapons against his neighbor, Iran, in the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties, and against the Kurdish population of his own country.
[ED. NOTE: Hey, Leftists everywhere, here’s the answer to your snotty question as to why invade Iraq, but not North Korea!]
So our anger, our anxiety, our unease, our judgment that we have vital interests at stake is not theoretical. It is based on a course of behavior by this particular leader of this particular nation.
Today...consequences are even more devastating potentially...because the damage that can be inflicted by...Hussein and Iraq, under his leadership, with weapons of mass destruction is incalculable; it is enormous.
I think the [Clinton] administration has made clear...that its goals here are limited...These would be...attacks that are aimed at accomplishing what the inspections were supposed to accomplish...which is the diminution and ultimately the elimination of Iraq’s capacity to wage chemical, biological or nuclear war against its neighbors or ultimately anyone in the world.
What I and some of the Members of the Senate hope for is a longer-term policy based on the probability that an acceptable diplomatic solution is not possible, which acknowledges as the central goal the changing of the regime in Iraq to bring to power a regime with which we and the rest of the world can have trustworthy relationships.
Mar. 12, 1998, written statement by Carl LEVIN:
I want to express my support for President Clinton, in consultation with Congress and consistent with the United States Constitution and laws, taking necessary and appropriate actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction...and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council. [ED. NOTE: Ah, yes, Carl: there's that blood for oil you Leftist whine about these days.]
Sept. 29, 1998, Trent LOTT:
[ED. NOTE: Lott introduces the bill that, when later passed, becomes the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.]
This is a bipartisan initiative. I am joined by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator McCain of Arizona, Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, Senator Helms of North Carolina, Senator Shelby of Alabama, Senator Brownback of Kansas, and Senator Kyl of Arizona.
Today is the 55th day without weapons inspections in Iraq. For months, I have urged the Administration to fundamentally change its policy on Iraq. Monitoring the concealment of weapons of mass destruction is not enough.
I have been working with a bipartisan group of Senators throughout much of the year to support a change in U.S. policy toward Iraq...It is time to openly state our policy goal is the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.
[ED. NOTE: Lott formally calls up the bill. Among the reasons cited in the bill for this change in national policy is the following clause:]
(11) On Aug. 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that, "the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" [the law] urged the President, "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
[ED. NOTE: The Iraq Liberation Act included the following section on national policy.]
SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
[ED. NOTE: This law passed overwhelmingly in 1998 and was signed into law by Clinton. Yet in the post-9/11, post anthrax-attacks world, in 2002-03 Dem senators reversed course and opposed the invasion of Iraq to effect that very regime change policy they had placed into U.S. law. Why? There is only one answer: Because a member of their party was not in the White House. They put raw partisan politics above the national well-being and are still doing so today.]
Sept. 29, 1998, Bob KERREY:
I spoke on Iraq on this floor last November and again in February, but Saddam Hussein is still in power, still threatening his neighbors and oppressing his people, so I must turn again to this topic. In fact, I will keep turning to it, joining my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, trying to change U.S. policy toward Iraq, because I cannot abide the idea of Saddam Hussein as the dictator of Iraq and I will never accept the status quo in Iraq. One of three things will happen...Saddam Hussein will lose his job, I will lose my job, or I will keep talking about him on this floor.
[ED. NOTE: Sure enough, Hussein outlasted Kerrey’s tenure in the Senate.]
Terrorism may or may not actually be on the rise, but terrorists have recently shown the intention and ability to attack American targets overseas. As we confront organizations like that of Usama bin Laden, we come face to face with people who will go to great efforts to kill Americans, and we react strongly. In the aftermath of events like the bombing of Khobar Towers or the two embassies in Africa, we naturally move terrorism to the forefront of our threat concerns.
[ED NOTE: Don't know which "we" Kerrey was talking about, since Clinton didn't do squat about terrorism during his eight-year term. So, as regards the threat posed by Usama bin Laden, what did Clinton and the Senate Dems know, and when did they know it? Hmmm...]
We know, most recently and unambiguously from the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, that Iraq’s program to develop weapons of mass destruction continues. We know that more than 50 days have elapsed since the last UNSCOM weapons inspection. Almost two months of immunity have been granted to a regime which used chemical weapons on its own people, which seeks biological weapons, and which had an active and advanced nuclear weapons program...
It is strongly in America’s interest that Iraq’s neighbors and our allies in the region live in peace and security. That interest alone more than justifies a policy to change the Iraqi government. But there is an additional reason which ought to have particular resonance in the United States...I refer to the need to free the Iraqi people from one of the most oppressive dictatorships on earth.
We Americans, who have striven for more than two centuries to govern ourselves, should particularly feel the cruel anomaly which is the Iraqi government. In an age in which democracy is in the ascendant, in which democracy is universally recognized as a government’s seal of legitimacy, the continued existence of a Stalinist regime like the one in Baghdad should inspire us to action. Saddam Hussein rules by raw fear. In terms of absolutism, personality cult, and terror applied at every level of society, only North Korea rivals Iraq today...I refuse to accept it, and I want the United States to refuse to accept it. As I have said on this floor before, when Saddam’s prisons and secret police records and burial grounds are opened, when the Iraqis can at last tell their horrifying story to the international court which will try Saddam for his many crimes against his own people, we Americans will be proud we took this stand.
[ED. NOTE: Yeah, we Americans will be proud — everyone except the Left and it’s mouthpieces in Congress, the media, academia, and various political action groups, that is.]
Oct. 9, 1998, Carl LEVIN:
Today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and 23 other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President [Clinton] to express our concern over Iraq’s actions and urging the President "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."
*As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with...Hussein in February, "You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force."
The letter was signed by 27 senators including the following Democrats: Breaux, Daschle, Dodd, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, (Bob) Kerrey, (John) Kerry, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski
[*ED. NOTE: Doesn’t Annan’s Feb. 1998 statement just take your breath away when contrasted with the behavior of Annan, Blix, and the international Left at the UN earlier this year?]
Please deposit additional pharmaceuticals for reply.
Uh, haz anybahdy
seed hillary ??
Uh, nevah mind!
Ah found 'er !!More bump images HERE !
A few more quotes from Clinton admin. and foreign nations:
28 August 1998
(Statements on August 20 actions in Afghanistan, Sudan) (6470)
(Quotes from U.S. officials and other prominent figures are grouped under these topics in the following document:
Reasons for the U.S. Strikes
What the U.S. Strikes Accomplished
Timing of the U.S. Strikes
Possibility of Further U.S. Strikes
Evidence of Precursor Chemical Production at Khartoum Facility
Legal Basis for the U.S. Strikes
Long-term Nature of Fight against Terrorism
Disrupting bin Ladin's Financial Network
U.S. Record of Bringing Terrorists to Justice
Support from Congress for the U.S. Strikes
World Leaders' Statements on U.S. Actions)
REASONS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
-- President Clinton, White House statement, August 20:
"Today I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the imminent threat they presented to our national security....Our target was terror. Our mission was clear: to strike at the network of radical groups affiliated with and funded by Usama bin Ladin, perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today....Bin Ladin publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America, saying -- and I quote -- 'We do not differentiate between those dressed in military uniforms and civilians. They're all targets.'
-- President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
"The information now in our possession is convincing. Behind these attacks were the same hands that killed American and Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia, the same hands that targeted U.S. airlines, and the same hands that plotted the assassinations of the Pope and President Mubarak of Egypt. I'm referring to the bin Ladin network of radical groups -- probably the most dangerous, non-state terrorist actor in the world today. We also had compelling evidence that the bin Ladin network was poised to strike at us again, and soon....With that information and evidence, we simply could not stand idly by. That is why I ordered our military strikes last Thursday (August 20). Our goals were to disrupt bin Ladin's terrorist network and destroy elements of its infrastructure in Afghanistan and Sudan. And our goal was to destroy in Sudan the factory with which bin Ladin's network is associated, which was producing an ingredient essential for nerve gas."
-- President Clinton, letter to the leaders of Congress, August 20:
"These strikes were a necessary and proportionate response to the imminent threat of further terrorist attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities. These strikes were intended to prevent and deter additional attacks by a clearly identified terrorist threat. The targets were selected because they served to facilitate directly the efforts of terrorists specifically identified with attacks on U.S. personnel and facilities and posed a continuing threat to U.S. lives."
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," August 20:
"...when the United States is attacked, when our people are taken out, we will stand out unilaterally in self-defense and really let the world know what we believe in."
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at Pentagon briefing, August 20:
"In the wake of the tragic and treacherous attacks on our embassies in East Africa and in light of the continuing patterns of specific threats against U.S. citizens and facilities, we've taken these actions to reduce the ability of these terrorist organizations to train and equip their misguided followers or to acquire weapons of mass destruction for their use in campaigns of terror....We had information that led us to believe that Usama bin Ladin and his organization were indeed trying to acquire chemical weapons and to utilize them in future activities."
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, briefing for key members of Congress, August 21:
"We did not target, specifically, individuals; we targeted training facilities. This is a training camp that is known as Terrorist University. We are determined to take down those facilities and disrupt them to the extent that we can to help minimize the ability of these individuals to wreak their terror upon innocent people. So striking the facilities in themselves is a worthy goal."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House briefing, August 20:
"We have convincing information from a variety of reliable intelligence sources and methods that Usama bin Ladin, with the help of his terrorist allies, is responsible for the devastating bombings on August 7 of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Rarely do numerous sources converge so uniformly and persuasively as they did in the course of our investigation into the responsibility for these terrorist acts. Based on this information, we have high confidence that these bombings were planned, financed and carried out by the organization bin Ladin leads."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House briefing, August 21:
"...I am absolutely certain that had we not done this (military strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan) we would have been the victim of other terrorist attacks in the not too distant future."
-- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Henry Shelton, interview on CBS-TV's "Face the Nation" program, August 23:
"After the attack on the (U.S.) embassies on the seventh of August, we started getting very convincing information from a variety of reliable sources that started quickly pointing toward the Usama bin Ladin network of terrorist groups as being responsible for the attack on the two embassies (in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam). Right after that we also got information that bin Ladin might be planning a gathering of terrorists in his training camp....The combination of those two things...immediately started us looking at military options that might be available to go after the bin Ladin network on the 20th of August. That information continued to pour in, and in a matter of days it became evident that bin Ladin's organization was responsible for it. And that's what drove the attack on the network."
-- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, letter to UN General Assembly President Danilo Turk, August 20:
"In accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter...the United States has exercised its right of self-defense in responding to a series of armed attacks against U.S. Embassies and U.S. nationals. My government has obtained convincing information from a variety of reliable sources that the organization of Usama bin Ladin is responsible for the devastating bombings on August 7 of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania....The bin Ladin organization maintains an extensive network of camps, arsenals, and training and supply facilities in Afghanistan, and support facilities in Sudan, which have been and are being used to mount terrorist attacks against American targets. These facilities include an installation at which chemical weapons have been produced."
-- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, U.S. Information Agency (USIA) Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25:
"The main purpose of the strikes was not retaliation; it was to prevent further terrorist attacks against American targets which we had reason to believe would take place....In this case, as the United States made clear, it not only had convincing evidence of the linkage to the recent bombings, but it had convincing evidence that there were to be other attacks planned by this organization and its brother and sister organizations around the world to take action against the United States. Those are the circumstances. They speak for themselves."
WHAT THE U.S. STRIKES ACCOMPLISHED
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts," August 23:
"We think that what we managed to do was to have some significant impact on the terrorist planning activities in what is a major terrorist camp....The point here was to do something that would disrupt Usama bin Ladin and his organization's ability to conduct additional terrorist activities....We'll have to wait to see whom we got on this. But we did have very good intelligence about the fact that there was going to be a meeting there with the various people that belong to Usama bin Ladin's umbrella organization of terrorists. But the point here was to get at a lot of their command and control and their structure in this camp that has been there for some time. We had very good evidence that this was a very good time to go after the structure. And I think that those raids have been successful."
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on CBS-TV Nightly News program, August 21:
"...we do know, as far as the pharmaceutical firm in Sudan is concerned, that is now non-operational, as far as we've been told. That was a very significant hit."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN's Late Edition news program, August 23:
"All six of these camps (in Afghanistan) -- these were training camps for terrorists; they've trained thousands of terrorists over the past several years in these camps -- were heavily to moderately damaged. There are six camps; severe damage was done, serious damage was done to all six. The camps themselves have been, I think, rendered ineffective. Anybody who was there obviously suffered some damage. And I think in addition we have made it very clear that those who attack or target the United States cannot do so with impunity."
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at Pentagon news briefing, August 20:
"Our plan was to attack these sites (in Afghanistan) with sufficient power to certainly disrupt them, and, hopefully, destroy them....We believe given the targeting that was done, with the capability that was unleashed, it would cause sufficient damage to disrupt them for some time."
-- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on the "Fox News Sunday" television program, August 23:
"But most importantly, what we did was send a very strong signal that no nation should provide sanctuary or harbor terrorists. This was primarily the objective, besides protecting Americans and making sure that bin Ladin and his forces did not attack us again, as we had evidence he would."
TIMING OF THE U.S. STRIKES
-- President Clinton, White House statement, August 20:
"With compelling evidence that the bid Ladin network of terrorist groups was planning to mount further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving people, I decided America must act....We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions."
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, interview on NBC-TV's "Meet the Press," August 23:
"...we had information that there may be a gathering of terrorists at that location in Afghanistan on that particular date, and that certainly was a factor in our planning....We saw an increased level of activity each day leading up to Thursday (August 20), and that again was convincing evidence to us that the information was accurate....We did not know if he (Usama bin Ladin) would be there or not. He was not our target as such. We were targeting his infrastructure and his network, and we believe that that was a mission accomplished."
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts," August 23:
"The point here was to get at a lot of their command and control and their structure in this camp that has been there for some time. We had very good evidence that this was a very good time to go after the structure. I think that those raids have been successful."
-- Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21:
"What we know is that Usama bin Ladin brought together a group of disparate terrorists and organizations for a kind of meeting that had taken place that led to this announcement of this World Islamic Front that appears to have been established back in February. And, as you may have heard, the National Security Adviser said they had information that this group was meeting again yesterday (near) Khost in Afghanistan, which was a reason for the timing of the attack."
POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER U.S. STRIKES
-- President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
"Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But it's high time that those who traffic in terror learn they, too, are vulnerable."
-- Secretary of Defense William Cohen, remarks at press stakeout, U.S. Capitol, August 21:
"...(More U.S. attacks are) always a possibility. We have contingency plans that we are developing, and there may be more in the future."
-- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, USIA Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25:
"We are engaged in a long-term struggle with terrorism. There are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough....We do not expect that these various initiatives will in themselves end the terrorist threat, but they are important because they clearly show that we are in this for the long haul. We will act unilaterally when we must in order to protect our citizens against imminent threats, but we invite other nations of the world to stand with us in this struggle because all nations are vulnerable to the threat of terrorism, and all citizens of other countries are equally vulnerable, as the history of this particular event makes crystal clear."
-- Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21:
"We fully expect that this will be an ongoing effort to counter the terrorists. We started fighting them yesterday, and we certainly are not going to end our fight against them today....As far as whether we're going to keep on conducting attacks, that will depend on the circumstances. In some cases, as in the case of Libya, we seek to bring terrorist perpetrators to justice through United Nations resolutions in an effort to get Qadhafi to give up two terrorist suspects for trial in an American or Scottish court."
-- Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, during a USIA Worldnet "Global Exchange" program, August 24:
"The other aspect is going to be a much more assertive attitude toward terrorist organizations, wherever they are in the world....They are going to have to realize that there is no place that they can have shelter or asylum or can hide....This is not going to be a short-term process....I think this is one of the big issues of the 21st century that we are going to have to face. And Americans are often quite impatient, and they lose focus on a given issue -- they get distracted sometimes. But in this case this has got to be a question of a campaign and an effort that is going to go on, frankly, over many years."
EVIDENCE OF PRECURSOR CHEMICAL PRODUCTION AT KHARTOUM FACILITY
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, remarks at a Pentagon briefing, August 20:
"What we do know is the facility that was targeted in Khartoum produced the precursor chemicals that would allow the production of a type of VX nerve agent....We do know that he (Usama bin Ladin)...had had an interest in acquiring chemical weapons...that this facility produces the precursors that can result in the production of VX. That was a sufficient connection for us."
-- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Henry Shelton, remarks at a Pentagon news briefing, August 20:
"The intelligence community is confident that this facility is involved in the production of chemical weapons agents, including precursor chemicals for deadly V series of nerve agents like, for example, VX."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, remarks at a White House briefing, August 20:
"The so-called pharmaceutical plant is part of something in Sudan called the Military Industrial Complex....We know that bin Ladin has been a substantial contributor to that enterprise. We know that bin Ladin and his people have sought to obtain chemical weapons. We know that he has had a particularly close relationship with the government of Sudan. And, therefore, when you put those things together...there clearly is...no question that it was making this chemical that has a name too long for me to pronounce (O-ethylmethylphosphonothioic acid). He (bin Ladin) was an early financial contributor to the Sudanese overall military enterprise, of which this is a part."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN's Late Edition news program, August 23:
"There's no question in our mind that that facility (in Sudan), that factory, was used to produce a chemical that is used in the manufacture of VX nerve gas and has no other commercial distribution as far as we understand. We have physical evidence of that fact....I can say that I have no question. The intelligence community has no question that that factory was used to manufacture a chemical used in making nerve gas."
-- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on the "Fox News Sunday" television program, August 23:
"We have credible, physical evidence that this was a chemical precursor plant (in Sudan). There are some intelligence sources here that are very sensitive. We will not compromise those, but we are ready to debate this issue with anybody."
-- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, USIA Foreign Press Center briefing, August 25:
"The physical evidence is a soil sample. Analysis of it shows the presence of a chemical whose simple name is EMPTA, a known precursor for the nerve agent VX, and an indicator of a potential to produce VX gas. The substance is not used in commercial applications. It doesn't occur naturally in the environment, and it is not a by-product of another chemical process."
-- Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, remarks at a briefing for the Middle East press at the Department of State, August 21:
"The chemical factory in northeastern Khartoum was selected because of clear evidence we have of its involvement in the production of chemical weapons -- physical evidence. The factory was producing a precursor for VX nerve gas....If you think for a moment about the consequences of Usama bin Ladin and his associates getting a hold of chemical weapons, I think you will understand the importance of targeting this factory, as well as the terrorist training bases in Afghanistan."
-- State Department Deputy Spokesman James Foley, State Department briefing, August 24:
"That facility may very well have been producing legitimate pharmaceuticals. That in no way contradicts our assertion that that facility was also producing precursor CW -- chemical weapons -- precursor elements. It is true that the facility was once approved by the Iraq sanctions committee as a source of pharmaceuticals provided to Iraq under the oil-for-food program. But again, that approval, which occurred in January of this year, in no way alters the fact that the facility was also producing those precursor elements."
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts," August 23:
"We believe that we have a legal right to self-defense and that is what we have stated. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, we have a right to self-defense. As the United States of America, we have the right to self-defense when our people have been killed and when others have been maimed. And we see this as a long-term struggle with terrorism."
-- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, letter to the President of the UN Security Council, August 20:
"In (carrying out these attacks), the United States has acted pursuant to the right of self-defense confirmed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The targets struck, and the timing and method of attack used, were carefully designed to minimize risks of collateral damage to civilians and to comply with international law, including the rules of necessity and proportionality."
-- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Bill Richardson, interview on "Fox News Sunday," August 23:
"Under Article 51 of the United Nations (Charter), we have the right of self-defense to take this action because our interests were being threatened and compromised."
-- Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Martin Indyk, State Department press briefing, August 21:
"In bombing the terrorist camps in Afghanistan and the chemical weapons factory in Sudan, the United States was exerting its right of self-defense under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. We not only had conclusive evidence of Usama bin Ladin's associates' responsibility for the bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, but we also had strong information from many sources of his intentions to attack more U.S. Embassies and interests around the world."
LONG-TERM NATURE OF THE FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
-- President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
"Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve. And we must be prepared for a long battle. But it's high time that those who traffic in terror learn they, too, are vulnerable....As we close ranks against international threats, we must remember this: America will never give up the openness, the freedom and the tolerance that define us. For the ultimate target of these terrorist attacks is our ideals, and they must be defended at any cost."
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview at U.S. Capitol, August 21:
"I think what we really have to understand now is that the terrorist threat is a longer-term one and it's a global one. We will maintain, along with other civilized countries in the world, a sustained effort to deal with what is an increasing terrorist threat....This is, unfortunately, the war of the future. We're all dedicated to making sure that Americans, whether they are at home or abroad, as well as other innocent people in other countries, do not have to live their lives under the threat of those who believe that taking down innocent people is some form of political expression."
-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts," August 23:
"We see this as a long-term struggle with terrorism. I think unfortunately...this is something that we're going to be dealing with at the end of the century and into the next one. We need to have a lot of cooperation from others. But as we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we think that our national interest has been threatened."
-- Defense Secretary William Cohen, interview on NBC TV's "Meet the Press" program, August 23:
"...the American people...can be sure that if we are attacked, they certainly are going to see a response....this is not a one-time event, as President Clinton and Secretary Albright have indicated. This is a long-term engagement. We intend to take down that terror network to do what we can to ensure that the American people and our friends are safe from the threat of terrorism."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, interview on CNN's Late Edition news program, August 23:
"We have been after bin Ladin and his network for a number of years, in a number of ways. Some of his associates, Ramzi Yousef, for example, who was affiliated with the World Trade Center (bombing), we finally arrested; brought back to justice; (he) was convicted....I think that it is important to see this as a long term effort, a long term struggle. We have knowledge, we know that these groups essentially have declared war on the United States. It is going to take a sustained, determined, systematic effort for us to go after these groups, and we intend to do that.
DISRUPTING BIN LADIN'S FINANCIAL NETWORK
-- President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 22:
"I'm determined to use all the tools at our disposal. That is why I have just signed an executive order directing the Treasury to block all financial transactions between the bin Ladin terrorist group and American persons and companies. We'll urge other governments to do the same. We must not allow sanctuary for terrorism -- not for terrorists or for their money. It takes money -- lots of it -- to build the network bin Ladin has. We'll do our best to see that he has less of it."
-- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, briefing at the Washington Foreign Press Center, August 25:
"We intended to pursue our anti-terror policy using all the tools and all of the resources at our command. On the same day as our military strikes, the president signed an executive order directing the Treasury Department to block all financial transactions between Usama bin Ladin's terrorist network and American persons and companies, and he urged other governments to do the same. And yesterday, Secretary Albright announced a new United States-United Kingdom plan to go forward with a trial in the Netherlands, before Scottish judges and applying Scottish law, of the two Libyans suspected of bombing Pam Am Flight 103 nearly 10 years ago."
-- U.S. Ambassador Robert Pelletreau, former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, interview on USIA Worldnet Global Exchange, August 24:
"If you have, as you understand Mr. bin Laden has, investments in a number of countries, and the ability to mobilize large financial resources in support of some terrorist action, that is one of the areas that we have to go after. And we have to start doing it at home. We have to start by making sure that our own laws and our own framework will do the maximum possible to prevent this from happening in our country, and him making use of facilities available in our country. Then we have to go out and expand this cooperation internationally...and I believe that we will see this happening over the months ahead."
U.S. RECORD OF BRINGING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE
-- President Clinton, White House statement, August 20:
"America has battled terrorism for many years. Where possible, we've used law enforcement and diplomatic tools to wage the fight. The long arm of American law has reached out around the world and brought to trial those guilty of attacks in New York, in Virginia, and in the Pacific. We have quietly disrupted terrorist groups and foiled their plots. We have isolated countries that practice terrorism. We've worked to build an international coalition against terror. But there have been and will be times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough, when our very national security is challenged, and when we must take extraordinary steps to protect the safety of our citizens."
-- President Clinton, Radio Address to the Nation, August 8:
"In recent years we have captured major terrorists in the far corners of the world and brought them to America to answer for their crimes -- sometimes years after they were committed. They include the man who murdered two CIA employees outside its headquarters. Four years later we apprehended him halfway around the world, and a Virginia jury sentenced him to death. The mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing who fled far from America -- two years later, we brought him back for trial in New York. And the terrorist responsible for bombing a Pan Am jet bound for Hawaii from Japan in 1982, we pursued him for 16 years. This June we caught him....Some serious acts of terror remain unresolved, including the attack on our military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; and now, these horrible bombings in Africa. No matter how long it takes or where it takes us, we will pursue terrorists until the cases are solved and justice is done."
-- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, White House press briefing, August 20:
"We have strengthened a number of our laws with respect to terrorist organizations. We have intensified our intelligence capability, our counterterrorism capabilities in other areas. In the last five years we have apprehended about 40 terrorists that were around the world and brought them to justice -- some after periods as long as 12 years. So we will continue that effort and continue to carry on this battle against the scourge of terrorism."
-- Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Pickering, State Department press briefing, August 21:
"We have fought this threat for many years and in many ways, including diplomacy, the rule of law and serious actions such as we have taken yesterday. We have also had several successes -- some are published, some are not -- apprehending terrorists wherever possible and putting them on trial, thwarting planned attacks and isolating state sponsors of terrorism. But as the President said yesterday, there are times when law enforcement and diplomatic tools are simply not enough."
SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR THE U.S. STRIKES
-- Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia), August 20:
"We have not yet gotten assessments of the damage, but I hope that it's been very decisive and I think it's very important that we sent the signal to countries like Sudan and Afghanistan that if you house a terrorist, you become a target."
-- Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Republican, Mississippi), August 20:
"Based on intelligence provided to me Wednesday, the Administration has very reliable information linking the terrorist Usama bin Ladin and his bases to the cowardly attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Our response appears to be appropriate and just. As I said in my State of the Union response in January: 'Despite any current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the President in full defense of America's interests throughout the world.'"
-- Representative Lee Hamilton (Democrat, Indiana), senior Democrat on House International Relations Committee, August 20:
"I support the action that the President took earlier today. I think the target of terrorism is America and Americans, and this represents a new phase in our effort against terrorism. We must take steps that we have not taken in the past....We are not attacking Islamic countries, we are attacking Islamic extremists who murder people. This should in no way be seen as an attack against Islam."
-- Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (Republican, North Carolina), August 20:
"Today's U.S. military actions in Sudan and Afghanistan were clearly designed to strike at the heart of a terrorist network that has the blood of American citizens on its hands, and which was planning further attacks on U.S. nationals. It is my strong hope that these operations have been successful....There must be no refuge for terrorists who murder innocent American citizens. Sooner or later, terrorists around the world will realize that America's differences end at the water's edge, and that the United States' political leadership always has, and always will, stand united in the face of international terrorism."
-- Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona), August 20:
"Today's military action against Usama bin Ladin's terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan and Sudan is a welcome response to the August 7 terrorist attacks against the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I know I speak for all Americans in supporting the U.S. service members who took part in this operation, and in hoping that the strikes clearly signal our will to retaliate against terrorists who target American citizens abroad.
"Foreign terrorists must not doubt that political differences at home do not weaken our resolve to use all means at our disposal to defend our national security interests. We must attack terrorism at its source in order to deter it from our own shores...."
-- Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas), August 20:
"The United States will not be intimidated by terrorist activities and threats. Terrorists must know that if they attack U.S. citizens, we will respond with deadly force. Those who would harm the security of the United States and its citizens have no place to hide."
-- Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska), August 20:
"I support the President's actions. Terrorism is the scourge of our time and we must deal with it swiftly, forcefully, and without mercy. Today's military strikes were a response to the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and to the continued threats against U.S. Embassies around the world. While today's strikes sent a clear message to the world's terrorists and those who harbor them, they will not end this threat. We must prepare ourselves for a long fight against terrorism.
"Those who wish America ill and who would resort to cowardly and despicable acts against American citizens must know that we will hunt them down. We will take the necessary actions to protect our citizens and preserve our civilization."
-- Senator Alfonse D'Amato (Republican, New York), August 20:
"If people think the Congress is not going to be totally supportive of the commander-in-chief, they're just mistaken. This may serve notice that, whatever our local disagreements, we stand with our commander-in-chief, and he was absolutely proper and forceful."
-- Representative Dan Burton (Republican, Indiana), August 20:
"I take the action for what it was -- to stop the terrorists and to make them pay for what they did. And that was the right thing to do. That's coming from one of the president's severest critics."
-- Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat, Missouri), senior Democrat on House National Security Committee, August 20:
"We just had to do it, we just had to....We're quite sure the attacks in Africa came from these two places, and we had to strike back."
-- Senator Charles Robb (Democrat, Virginia), August 21:
"Anyone who provides safe harbor for terrorists ought to take a look at what happened this time around....This is only Phase One of an operation that will continue."
WORLD LEADERS' STATEMENTS ON U.S. ACTIONS
Prime Minister Tony Blair (UK):
"The atrocities this month in Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, and Omagh have shown the pain and suffering terrorism can bring to innocent people. I strongly support this American action against international terrorists. Terrorists the world over much know that democratic governments will act decisively to prevent their evil crimes."
Chancellor Helmut Kohl (Germany):
"The German Federal Government decisively condemns all forms of terrorism. Terrorism can only be defeated through cooperation and consistent, determined actions by all states.
"The Federal Government therefore supports all measures to combat this scourge of the international community. This applies especially to the US response against organizations in Afghanistan and Sudan that have been linked to the terrorist attacks against U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
"The Federal Government is united with President Clinton and the international community in the determination that common actions to combat terrorist actions and attacks must be carried forward with commitment and on the foundation of existing international conventions."
Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (France):
"We expressed our indignation and our compassion and our solidarity in the face of the bombings in Dar es Salaam and in Nairobi. We said we took note of the fact that the American authorities had hit a number of targets, citing the right of legitimate defense of nations which are themselves attacked, by virtue of international law, and in fact I believe we also say clearly we must give determined and firm responses against terrorists, wherever they hit from."
Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi (Japan):
"I believe firm measures should be taken against acts of terrorism following the bombings of two American Embassies in Africa. Although details of the U.S. military operation are not yet fully known, Washington's resolute stance toward terrorists is understandable."
Foreign Minister Wolfgang Schuessel (Austria):
"The EU, which considers the fight against international terrorist activities as its foremost important political task, will use all its means available to effectively combat acts of terror wherever they take place and whatever motives they are related to."
Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen (Sweden):
"Terrorism is one of the world's great security challenges....Terrorism must be fought with determination and around the world, and within the system of international law. This underlines the need to intensify further international cooperation against terrorism."
Foreign Minister Van Aartsen (Netherlands):
"We do not yet know all the details, but from what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, I am convinced that the United States had adequate reasons and sufficient evidence."
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Israel):
"We in Israel support the American action fully because...it really is an act of self-defense against ruthless terrorists who need no pretext to kill people, as they did in Nairobi and Tanzania and will do so again unless they are hit -- and hit conclusively and repeatedly."
Presidential Press Secretary Sergei Yyastrzhembskiy (Russia):
"Russia and the United States are in the same boat as far as combating global terrorism is concerned. We will understand the grief being felt over the loss of American lives, primarily in Kenya. There is no doubt that we have coordinated, and will continue to coordinate, the fight against global terrorism."
Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit (Turkey):
"Terrorism is the gravest danger facing the world and humanity today. Turkey is one of the countries that suffers most from terrorism, which has gained an international dimension. We must view with understanding the sensitivity that the US administration has shown in response to the attacks carried out against the US Missions and Embassy buildings which, according to international law, have immunity in all respects."
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhu Bangzao (China):
"China's position of condemning all forms of terrorist activities is clear and specific. We stand for handling the explosions in Kenya and Tanzania according to the United Nations Charter and the guiding principles of international law. The international community should strengthen its coordination and cooperation in rebuffing international terrorist activities so as to eliminate the source that generates international terrorism and to safeguard world peace and stability."
Foreign Minister Jan Kavan (Czech Republic):
"International terrorism cannot be tolerated...it must be fought...international terrorists must know that they are punishable."
President Yoweri Museveni (Uganda)
Museveni expressed his strong support for the U.S. actions against terrorism. He stated the one reason why Uganda does not have diplomatic relations with Sudan is because of its terrorist behavior -- as evidenced by the massacre of Atiak (Northern Uganda), the kidnap and defilement of the Abuke Girls School (Northern Uganda), and the recent Kichwamba incident (Western Uganda) where more than 30 students were incinerated and others kidnaped.
You might want to check out #184, 186. Andrew Sullivan posted the letter at his websight and he's asking those who want to share their stories about Iraq (troops-families) to e-mail him.
He's working to get their side out. Please pass on his offer to anyone you know serving in the military. He has a powerful 'voice'. (^:
Thanks!
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.
