Posted on 3/3/2006, 3:47:51 AM by KJC1
For Immediate Release March 16, 2003
Statement of the Atlantic Summit: A Vision for Iraq and the Iraqi People
Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein. His brutal regime has reduced a country with a long and proud history to an international pariah that oppresses its citizens, started two wars of aggression against its neighbors, and still poses a grave threat to the security of its region and the world.
Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the U.N. For 12 years, the international community has tried to persuade him to disarm and thereby avoid military conflict, most recently through the unanimous adoption of UNSCR 1441. The responsibility is his. If Saddam refuses even now to cooperate fully with the United Nations, he brings on himself the serious consequences foreseen in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions.
In these circumstances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country. We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people -- its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others -- should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.
We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people. All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.
We will fight terrorism in all its forms. Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind.
In achieving this vision, we plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations; our Allies and partners; and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption, on an urgent basis, of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq. We will also propose that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim basis, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the Oil for Food program.
Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq. Our commitment to support the people of Iraq will be for the long term.
We call upon the international community to join with us in helping to realize a better future for the Iraqi people.
I saw Charles Krauthammer, who I respect a lot, the other night on Fox let this "meme" slide and it seemed like even he forgot that President Bush has ALWAYS had the liberation of Iraq as a reason for war. I just don't want this fact of history to get muffled and squelched out and successfully sucked down the memory hole. Note to Admins: If this post is in the wrong place, please move and I apologize for any inconvenience.
Yep there were like 5 reasons for the war in Iraq. Anothere was the failure of the UN resolutions. The MSM only wants to focus on one and that being the WMD. Looks like they are being proven wrong on that one too.
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin
If anyone believes that Saddam's WMD wasn't the central issue to the US invading Iraq, one only needs to read the speeches that PresBush gave in the months, weeks and days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. The President was focused and on message. Bush made it crystal clear, disarming Saddam of his WMD was the central reason for invading Iraq.
"In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
"... Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.
"... Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction."
--- PresBush 9.12.2002, UN Speech
"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament."
--- PresBush, 3.6.2003
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people."
--- PresBush 3.16.2003, Azores Portugal
"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991."
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
--- PresBush 3.17.2003, Address to the Nation
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
--- PresBush 3.19.2003, Address to the Nation
The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
Good post. And good follow up. Hopefully at least some historians shall force themselves to be not only thorough but un-biased, and GWB shall in time be vindicated. So many top officials seem to have sieves for minds. They are not anywhere as sharp as many would hope for them to be. Many of our more conservative writers also slip. Sometimes to cover all aspects of the reasons we went in, are beyond the scope of the masses to bear, let alone the minds that we hope can deliver on a pin head, the whole list is such plain terms to elucidate the whole as being vindicated. We just have to live with these failures on many of our parts, and look forward. If in the end, GWB is not shown to have acted out of this countries best interests, then so be it. But it sure looks to me all the reasons we went in are when taking in whole adequate. To many view things in tunnel vision. One must look at the whole to find rest.
I'd like to see this rewritten, with the subject being the liberation of the people of Iran.
That's the next step.
I'd like to see this rewritten, with the subject being the liberation of the people of Iran.
That's the next step.
Ouch!
The reasons have always been multiple.
What prompted me to post this was seeing even Charles Krauthammer act like liberating Iraqis wasn't an issue until after the fact. I'm sure I'm not the only one who saw that panel discussion.
The good news is that the left can't re-write history. The bad news is that they are damn good, manipulative liars, so much so that they have erased/confused the memories of otherwise intelligent people.
Welcome to teh suck
I agree that even without WMD's there was plenty of justification for going to war with Iraq. I also understand we can't just decimate Iraq and then leave it to its own devices, but I'm not quite as compasionate as GWB. I'm not sure I agree the Iraqi's are worth saving. No matter what we do for the Iraqi's, when all is said and done, we will still be infidels.
Were it up to me, I probably would have decimated them and left them the message that we'd be back if they reformed into a nation hostile to us and its neighbors.
I don't want to repeat this in Iran if we are forced to do something with them.
Neither the Iraqis nor the Iranians should be "decimated." Lots of people are born into those regimes who spend their lives trying to get away, and some are lucky and some are not. It is a FORCED living condition. One of my best friends is from Iran, and is a Bush supporter.
The bottom line is the reasons were/are multiple, and NO ONE should allow misinformed or intentionally deceptive people to get away with spreading falsehoods. That was the point of me posting this. This "lie" that President Bush made up reasons after the fact has far too much traction.
I don't suggest decimating people for the sake of decimating people. I'm not however, too keen on occupying a people who are hostile to us just to liberate them. We can't save the world, but we can and should remove or respond to threats.
Not on your life. The central reason and the overriding factor for invading Iraq, was based on Saddam's WMD capability and his WMD programs. I'd place that valid reasoning factor at 51%, or better. Without that legitimate threat of Saddam employing his WMD in some manner, the Congress and the American people would never have supported the invasion of Iraq.
There were a lot of "Whereas" points mentioned in the Joint Resolution to go to war, but the following were the two reasons given in the that joint resolution for going to war with Iraq.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
A link to the official "whereas" list and Joint Resolution.
There were MANY reasons, but you know that. Iraq WAS a threat, not because we expected them to launch but because the concern was that Iraq would pass off weapons to terrorist organizations (which were harbored there and PAID too). If you want quotes, I can find them pretty quick.
And number two, why bother to enforce UN resolutions? We see how well that works. Iran is thumbing their nose now too.
So what is YOUR solution, if YOU ruled the world? No critiques allowed, only SOLUTIONS.
You might even say that the Bush administration did nothing more, nor less, than implement approved Clinton administration policy.
See "Iraq Liberation Act", c. 1998.
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.