Skip to comments.How Soon They Forget (Albright & Berger Said Saddam Posed Threat To US If Left Own Devices)
Posted on 06/23/2004 3:15:33 PM PDT by RWR8189
HOW SOON THEY FORGET
As Secretary Of State And National Security Advisor, Albright And Berger Said Saddam Posed Threat To United States If Left To His Own Devices
On Iraq, Albright Pledge To Use Force On Our Timetable In Response To Threats. ALBRIGHT: In the meantime were not going to play Saddams game on his terms. He wants to create a U.S./Iraq confrontation. This is an issue between Iraq and the United Nations. But let me also make clear that, if necessary, we will use force on our timetable in response to threats at a time and place of our choosing. (PBS The News Hour With Jim Lehrer, 8/14/98)
In New York Times Op-Ed, Albright Pledged U.S. Would Take Decisive Action If U.N. Failed To Get Saddam To Cooperate. [S]addams decision to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and U.N. special commission is a violation of the agreement he reached with Secretary General Kofi Annan less than six months ago and is a direct challenge to the authority of the Security Council. This is a confrontation between Iraq and the United Nations. It is up to Mr. Annan and the Security Council to make sure that Saddam reverses course and cooperates with UNSCOM. And if they fail to persuade him to back down, we will have laid the foundation for taking our own decisive action. (Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Op-Ed, The U.S. Will Stand Firm On Iraq, No Matter What, The New York Times, 8/17/98)
Albright Wrote That Security Council Must Face Up To Its Responsibilities On Iraq Or U.S. Will Have A Free Hand To Use Force. Our purpose now is to get the Security Council to face up to its responsibilities to the U.N. special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. These organizations have been clearly mandated by the Security Council to carry out the necessary measures to disarm Iraq. If the Council fails to persuade Saddam to resume cooperation, then we will have a free hand to use other means to support UNSCOMs mandate. (Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Op-Ed, The U.S. Will Stand Firm On Iraq, No Matter What, The New York Times, 9/17/98)
Albright Said Longer Term Goal Of U.S. Is Regime Change In Iraq To Government That Really Represented Iraqi People. [T]he short-term goal at the moment through this military campaign is to degrade [Saddam Husseins] ability to develop and deploy his weapons of mass destruction, to degrade his command and control of some of his security areas in order to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors. A medium-term goal is, in fact, to have him comply with the Security Council resolutions. And I believe that he cant have two contradictory things, which is to have sanctions lifted and retain his weapons of mass destruction. The only way here is for UNSCOM, a strong, professional, functioning UNSCOM with unfettered access to be able to continue to do its work; and, again just keep in mind that it has not been able to do that. So if we can get a functioning UNSCOM back in, that is a plus. We will continue our policy of containment of Saddam through the economic embargo and, generally, in terms of keeping him in his box. Longer term, we have come to the determination that the Iraqi people would benefit if they had a government that really represented them. So we know that this is something that cannot be done overnight, and we are working with the various opposition groups on a longer range way of trying to help them help themselves to have a regime that represents them. (Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Press Conference, 12/17/98)
Albright Cited Threat Of Iraq Using WMD Against Us Or Our Allies As Reason For 1998 Bombings. ALBRIGHT: Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face, and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm. (Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Remarks In Town Hall Meeting With Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, 2/18/98)
Berger Said Saddams Ability To Rebuild His Weapons Of Mass Destruction Justifies Use Of Force By U.S. FOX NEWS TONY SNOW: A lot of people say, well, why should we go to war unless theres an attack on us? Is Saddam going to attack us? BERGER: Well, hes going the danger here is that he is able to have sanctuaries, safe havens, to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, which he can use to threaten or intimidate his neighbors in a region of the world. And thats something we simply cannot permit to happen. This is not in our own national interest. Its not so much a question of him in the short term delivering these weapons to the United States, but that region of the world - for security, strategic, economic and other reasons is extraordinarily important to the United States. (Fox News Fox News Sunday, 2/22/98)
Berger Warned Saddam Will Use Those Weapons Of Mass Destruction Again, As He Has Ten Times Since 1983. (Clinton Team Jeered During Town Hall, USA Today, 2/19/98)
Berger Said Saddam Would Not Be Contained Peacefully, But Would Try To Push The Limits Of The Box Constantly. I think they understand that you have to stand up to individuals like Saddam Hussein who continually tries to push the limits of the box that hes in, and that if we dont do that, he is not simply going to stay in Baghdad and grow old in a rocking chair on the porch of one of his hundreds of palaces. (PBS The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, 2/13/98)
And it was Clinton's Justice Department that got a federal indictment against Osama bin Laden which specifically mentioned the terrorists ties to Saddam Hussein.
A list of connections and articles here:
"Mr. Clarke, Mr. Clarke, please this is urgent.
We can take out Osama, now. Please answer!!! We have him in our sight."
Clarke: "Nope. Forgetaboutit. No big deal. They told Clinton, Gorelick and I
that they promise that they will only attack our computers and that he should go back to Monica."
PARTIAL LIST OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IGNORED BY GORELICK, CLARKE and CLINTON
1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993
1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions
1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995
1996 Khobar Towers attack
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998
1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered
1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted)
2000 USS Cole attacked, many U.S. Navy sailors murdered
Good list. But didn't you hear that Clinton also stopped the destruction of LA International from a terrorist plot to "fly a plane" into that airport. This was Clinton's version of events, which Minter reminded people had nothing to do with "using planes as missiles" and was actually part of the thwarted Milennium plot. While LA airport was the target of a bomb plot, Clinton's new version of events is an attempt to make himself look as if he was not only on the ball...but knew in advance about using planes as missiles. This guy is nuts.
Just proves once again that the democrats will do or say anything to get back in power. From the interviews I have listened to they have denied ever saying anything like this. They will continue to deny that they ever utter these words, just like Clinton denied he was having sex in the oval office. And the news media will support their lies because the news media is committed to defeat our President.
I'm still looking forward to Bush pulling Osama out of the place he's hiding him, like Mad Maddie Halfbright suggested to Mort Kondracke in the green room months ago.
The New York Times: (212) 556-7652
The New York Post: (212) 930-8000
NY York Daily News (212) 210-NEWS
Let's FREEP Alan Colmes while we're at it!
Janet Parshall, conservative talk show host
Fax: (703) 516-7212
E-Mail us at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Special Report with Brit Hume
Hugh Hewitt (conservative talk show host/columnist)
Michael Medved (conservative talk show host/columnist)
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.