Re: If you still think we can win in Iraq..

A few examples from 1998:


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:

[NOTE: After Kofi Annan secured one more "agreement" with Hussein,
Daschle took the floor to celebrate that "achievement." He does not use
modifying words like "alleged" or "reported." 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.


Feb. 25, 1998, Bob KERREY:

Force, either our own or that of dissident Iraqis, will be required to
remove this regime.

[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.' "


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.

[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.


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."


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.

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.

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.


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.

....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.

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:

[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.

[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."

[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.

[NOTE: This law passed overwhelmingly in 1998 and was signed into law
by Clinton.]


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.

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.

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.


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

Jay



Anne Vasquez wrote:
Which Democrats are you referring to, Jay? That definition sure doesn't
apply to this one. I never believed Saddam had WMD, never thought we
should have been in Iraq, believed it was all about oil and still
believe the same.

I agree that we don't understand the kind of violence endemic in that
part of the world and weren't ready to deal with it. They've been
fighting there for thousands of years. They aren't going to stop
because we say so.

All I've been able to do since this thing started is shake my head and
ask if the government had any idea what they were getting us into. I
sincerely doubt it. I have to wonder how many of our elected officials'
sons and daughters have lost their lives in this debacle.

Anne


Jay Vance wrote:
Carol and I have been talking about the war and our feelings about it.
I think we went into the war with honest intentions (all the Democrats
who have blasted Bush over the WMD issue were the very same ones who
themselves said publicly that they believed Saddam had them and should
be stopped). I believe the big miscalculation was the level of
sectarian violence that is endemic to that part of the country. We
just don't understand it. And that, by the way, is the focus of Will's
column, the fact that the sectarian violence has derailed our hopes of
"winning" this war in the sense of accomplishing a lasting peace. Will
is not commenting on the justness of the war, rather the lack of candor
on the part of the administration regarding how the internicine
fighting has affected what we had hoped to accomplish there. Nor is
Will suggesting we summarily pull out of Iraq; regardless of why we
went there in the first place, and regardless of the miscalculations
since then, we can't just pull up our tents and go home. Having said
that, I do believe we have to face the fact that we are not going to
"win" this war like we won World War II or Desert Storm. I believe the
best we can do is effect an orderly withdrawal and let the Iraqis
decide their own destiny.

Jay


Gisele wrote:
Check out George F. Will's column in the November 6 issue of Newsweek.
This guy is as conservative as they come. Bush and Cheney's ears
should be bursting into flames right about now.

Gisele


--
Gisele


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A California Lawyers Perspective on Iraq War or Liberals Just Dont Get It
    ... >> A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War. ... Whether Saddam Hussein was directly ... a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: feb - mar...
    ... Whatever one feels about the Iraq ... The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over ... weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. ... regime from power. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Clinton, not Bush, got us into the war.
    ... testimony before the United States Senate Armed Services Committee on ... Issue: Weapons in Iraq CLOSE ... Corporations that have sold dual-use chemicals and biological samples ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Gunnery Sgt. Michael Burghardt
    ... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. ... I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002 ... Clinton’s policy towards Iraq set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: McCain believes Iraq war can be won by 2013
    ... Quotes and Facts on Iraq ... [Link Directly To This Entry] ... decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ... weapons of mass destruction. ...
    (misc.survivalism)