Even while insisting that the US is exhausting diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful solution to the current Iraqi crisis, US President Bill Clinton spoke at the Pentagon in an effort to drum up domestic support for possible US military strikes against Iraq.
Clinton said the US stands in opposition to the "reckless acts of outlaw nations" and an "unholy axis" of terrorists, drug dealers, and organized crime. While the US would greatly prefer a diplomatic solution to the crisis, Clinton reiterated that the US is ready to use force.
"There can be no dilution" of "the essence" of the UN resolutions, which call for unfettered access, Clinton said. He said that a solution must meet a "clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard," which is the "free, full, unfettered access" to disputed "presidential sites" in Iraq, access the US has repeatedly called for. "We seek to finish the job" of the UN weapons inspectors, Clinton said.
Clinton admitted that the potential military strikes, which have met with widespread international opposition, would not destroy Iraq's capacity to create weapons of mass destruction, they would, "seriously reduce his [Saddam Hussein's] capacity to threaten his neighbors." Clinton said the strikes would leave Saddam Hussein "worse off" than he is now.
US Vice-President Al Gore said the US is "working around the clock to pursue a possible diplomatic solution to the crisis," but warned "When it comes to protecting our vital national interests, Americans will stand as one."
Clinton said Iraq had repeatedly submitted evaluations of its weapons that were refused by UNSCOM, including six declarations on biological weapons and four on nuclear weapons. He said that when Iraqi reports of weapons capacities were disproven, the Iraqis simply amended the old reports in light of the new evidence. Clinton also said that UNSCOM was effective, although the Iraqis tried to place "debilitating conditions" on their work.
Iraq has called UNSCOM's impartiality and professionalism into question and has proposed an offer -- which the US rejected -- that special teams be formulated by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to inspect the presidential sites for a period of two months. The teams could include UNSCOM members.
"Force can never be the first answer, but sometimes it's the only answer," Clinton said.
GREAT, informative post. Thank you! I'm going have to post this all over the walls at my loony liberal University!
I'm quite suprised that Clinton and Gore haven't been screaming from the rooftops, "I said it first!"
And one more: Clinton's speech on Dec. 16, 1998, after he sent in a few missiles to Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
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.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 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 UN 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 UN.
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 UN 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 UN 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 UN 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 UN 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 UN 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.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military 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's 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 UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
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.
PRESIDENT CLINTON:STANDING FOR PEACE, SECURITY AND FREEDOM
"In this century, we found out through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness, determination and, if necessary, action... If we act as one, we can safeguard our immediate interests -- and send a clear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that the international community has the wisdom, the will and the way to protect peace and security in a new era."
President Bill Clinton
Today, President Clinton meets with Defense Secretary Bill Cohen and the Joint Chiefs to be briefed on the status of American forces in the Persian Gulf. Following the meeting, the President speaks to the American people to discuss the issues at stake in the current crisis and the steps the U.S. is taking in the region to protect peace, security and freedom.
NEW SECURITY CHALLENGES IN THE 21ST CENTURY. As we prepare to enter a new millennium, we must also prepare to face new threats to our peace, security and freedom; these include: the spread of weapons of mass destruction, reckless acts by outlaw states, and terrorists, international criminals and drug traffickers.
THREATENING PEACE AND STABILITY. There is no more immediate example of these new threats than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam has built up an arsenal, including chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. More important, Saddam has used these against combatants and civilians, against a foreign adversary and against his own people. His regime endangers the safety of Iraq's people, the stability of the region, and the security of the world. It also challenges much of what we are working for:
promotion of a just and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors;
protection of the free flow of vital resources;
preservation of the stability and security of our friends in the region;
prevention of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction;
spread of prosperity and opportunity.
A PEACEFUL, DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION TO THE CURRENT CRISIS. The United States has repeatedly and unambiguously made clear that its preference is for a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the current crisis. At the end of the Gulf War, as a condition for the cease-fire, the United Nations demanded -- and Saddam agreed -- to declare in 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles. The U.N. set up a special commission of highly trained international weapons experts, called UNSCOM, to monitor Iraq's commitment. Over the last several years, these inspectors have uncovered and destroyed in Iraq more weapons of mass destruction capacity than were destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam is trying again to thwart their mission.
To reach a genuine, diplomatic outcome, Iraq must agree, ver y soon, to free, full and unfettered inspection of all sites, everywhere in Iraq, with no dilution or diminishment of UNSCOM.
A COALITION STRATEGY. The United States is not acting alone. Our force posture in the region is possible only through the support of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Many other friends and allies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support, including: the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Argentina, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
You really did a terrific job finding and assembling all these quotes and info.
Someone should suggest to Hannity that he should use these quotes every time he has a Democrat on his show.