Skip to comments.Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Full Text, Sense of Congress - Remove Saddam
Posted on 01/27/2003 9:40:28 PM PST by chance33_98
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
But I loved it because if there's the slightest chance it's a lie, Clinton must be in an all out panic tonight. :-)
[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 Iraqs 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.
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 Daschles 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 Iraqs 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 doesnt do it again.
The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraqs 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, wasnt 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 its 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 doesnt 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 Dorgans 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.
Iraqs 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 Iraqs 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, Iraqs 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 Kamils defection in 1995. According to the white paper, "Iraq has admitted experimenting with seven uranium enrichment techniques..."
The Security Council has concluded that...Iraqs weapons development activities are "material breaches of its obligations" under the cease-fire resolution; and Iraqs failure to comply with the safeguards agreement "constitutes a breach of its international obligations" under the Nonproliferation Treaty.
[ED NOTE: It cant 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: Thats 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 Iraqs 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, isnt 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 Clintons policy.
Questions have been asked about our objectives. The objectives have been defined precisely. They are to curtail and delay Saddam Husseins 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 Americas 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, heres 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 Iraqs 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 Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction...and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraqs neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the worlds 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 Husseins 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 Kerreys 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 Iraqs 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 Americas interest that Iraqs 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 governments 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 Saddams 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 its 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 Iraqs 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 Iraqs 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: Doesnt Annans 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?]
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.