Hey, everyone, this post and thread from 2004 is worth recalling now (and circulating to everyone you know) as the Demagogues continue to try to rewrite history on Iraq just before national elections (today the NY Times wants us to believe that Iraq's planning documents for nuclear weapons could only be of use to Iran, not to Iraq itself):
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks 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."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"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. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7
Iraq News, October 9, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie
The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .
NB: On Oct 5, the House passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" by an
overwhelming majority [see "Iraq News" Oct 6] and the Senate passed it
unanimously Oct 7.
October 7, 1998
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM SUPPORT A
TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of H.R. 4655, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative
clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4665) to establish a program to support a transition to
democracy in Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill, There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LOTT: Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to act on H.R.
4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I introduced companion
legislation, S. 2525, last week with 7 co-sponsors. Last Friday, the
House International Relations Committee marked up the legislation and
made only minor, technical changes. On October 5, the House passed H.R.
4655 by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 360 to 38. That vote, and
our vote in several moments, is a strong demonstration of Congressional
support for a new policy toward Iraq--a policy that overtly seeks the
replacement of Saddam Hussein's regime through military and political
support for the Iraq opposition.
The United States has many means at its disposal to support the
liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom
fighters In Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for
a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.
The Clinton Administration regularly calls for bipartisanship in
foreign policy. I support them when I can. Today, we see a clear example
of a policy that has the broadest possible bi-partisan support. I know
the Administration understands the depth of our feeling on this issue. I
think they are beginning to understand the strategic argument in favor
of moving beyond containment to a policy of "rollback." Containment is
not sustainable. Pressure to lift sanctions on Iraq is increasing--
despite Iraq's seven years of refusal to comply with the terms of the
Gulf War cease-fire. Our interests in the Middle East cannot be
protected with Saddam Husslen in power. Our legislation provides a
roadmap to achieve our objective.
This year, Congress has already provided $5 million to support the
Iraqi political opposition. We provided $5 million to establish Radio
Free Iraq. We will provide additional resources for political support in
the FY 1999 foreign Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million
for the Iraqi National Congress.
Enactment of this bill will go farther. It requires the President to
designate at least one Iraqi opposition group to receive U.S. military
assist-ance. It defines eligibility criteria such a group or groups must
meet. Many of us have ideas on how the designation process should work.
I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi National Congress has been
effective in the past and can be effective in the future. They
represent the broadest possible base of the opposition. There are other
groups that are currently active inside Iraq: the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The State Department seems to believe there
are more than 70 opposition groups, many of which do not meet the
criteria in H.R. 4655. Many barely even exist or have no political
base. They should not be considered for support. We should also be
very careful about considering designation of groups which do not share
our values or which are simply creations of external forces or exile
politics, such as the Iraqi Communist Party or the Iraqi National
Accord.
I appreciate the work we have been able to do with the Administration
on this legislation. But we should be very clear about the designation
process. We intend to exercise our oversight responsibility and
authority as provided in section 4(d) and section 5(d). 1 do not think
the Members of Congress, notified pursuant to law, will agree to any
designation that we believe does not meet the criteria in section 5 of
the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the
Senate's action. Even though this legislation will pass without
controversy on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in
the final conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies
shed blood to liberate Kuwait. Today, we are empowering Iraqis to
liberate their own country.
Mr. HELMS: Mr. President, I am an original co-sponsor of HR 4655, the
Iraq Liberation Act, for one simple reason; Saddam Hussein is a threat
to the United States and a threat to our friends in the Middle East.
This lunatic is bent on building an arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction with a demonstrable willingness to use them. For nearly
eight years the United States has stood by and allowed the U.N. weapons
inspections process to proceed in defanging Saddam. That process is now
in the final stages of collapse, warning that the U.S. cannot stand idly
by hoping against hope that everything will work itself cut.
We have been told by Scott Ritter and others that Saddam can
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction within months. The
Washington Post reported only last week that Iraq still has three
nuclear "implosion devices' --in other words, nuclear bombs minus the
necessary plutonium or uranium to set them off. The time has come to
recognize that Saddam Hussein the man is inextricable from Iraq's drive
for weapons of mass destruction. For as long as he and his regime are
in power, Iraq will remain a mortal threat.
This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It
will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way.
Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine,
enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam's yoke to
fight the battle against him.
The bill requires the President to designate an Iraqi opposition group
or groups to receive military drawdown assistance. The President need
not look far; the Iraqi National Congress once flourished as an umbrella
organization for Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni Muslims. It should flourish
again, but it needs our help.
Mr. President: the people of Iraq, through representative
organizations such as the INC, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the
Kurdish Democratic Party and the Shi'ite SCIRI, have begged for our
help. The day may yet come when we are dragged back to Baghdad; I
believe that day can be put off, perhaps even averted, by helping the
people of Iraq help themselves.
Opponents of this initiative--I shouldn't call them friends of
Saddam--have said that the Iraqi opposition exists in name only, that
they are too parochial to come together. They are not entirely
wrong--which is why Senator Lott and Chairman GILMAN (the lead House
sponsor) have carefully crafted the designation requirement in H.R. 4655
to insist that only broad-based, pro-democracy groups be selected by the
President to receive drawdown assistance. I would go further and suggest
to the President that he designate just one group, the Iraqi National
Congress, in which the Kurds, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis of Iraq hold
membership. The opposition must be unified, but it may just take the
leadership of the United States to bring them together.
Finally, this bill gives the Congress oversight over the designation
and drawdown authority. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
I intend to exercise vigorously that authority. The White Rouse and the
State Department have indicated that they support this bill. We have a
unique opportunity, and I intend to do everything in my power to ensure
that opportunity is not frittered away. The price of failure is far too
high.
Mr. KERREY: Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of HR. 4655, the
Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of
Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the
goals we all share--for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving
quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and
what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly,
First, this bill is not, in my view, an instrument to direct U.S.
funds and supplies to any particular Iraqi revolutionary movement. There
are Iraqi movements now in existence which could qualify for designation
in accordance with this bill. Other Iraqis not now associated with each
other could also band together and qualify for designation. It is for
Iraqis, not Americans to organize themselves to put Saddam Hussein out
of power, just as it will be for Iraqis to choose their leaders in a
democratic Iraq. This bill will help the Administration encourage and
support Iraqis to make their revolution.
Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in
operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not
Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new
tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance
America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.
This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a
U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a
transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses
to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own
citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors
twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its
atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into
the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop
nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized
its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic
country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says
America will not. I will be an even prouder American when the refusal,
and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.
Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at
this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4655) was considered read the third time, and passed.