Posted on 03/02/2006 7:47:51 PM PST 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.
Right on the nose. Clinton talked, Bush walked.
We have neither the ability nor the obligation to "liberate" the world.
There's a lot we can do to help people liberate themselves, but we can't invade every nation that needs liberating.
Don't forget the map! Iraq is the nexus of the Middle East.
Iran is hemmed in. So is Saudi Arabi and Syria and Turkey (our good friends).
Iraq is the hub of the Muslim Wheel!
If I were President, Syria would be ruins....oh, sorry, they already are...and Turkey, oh sorry again...Iran...oops...
Enough playing around. Pull the troops back or allow them to engage and destroy. That is all the Arabs and Iranians and Turks understand! Death, destruction, slaughter! Let their past be their present!
So why bother trying, right? Especially why bother creating democracies where theocracies can fester, unchecked.
Nah, the only "obligation" you have is to blame Bush if/when we are hit again. If President Bush had ignored the growing threat, the howls would have been far and wide, and justifiably so. Spend some time looking into the Oil for Food scandal, if you haven't already.
Didn't you read what I said?
I said the US can do a lot to help people liberate themselves, but we can't invade every nation that needs liberating. What part of that do you disagree with?
I didn't see Charles Krauthammer's remarks. But if Krauthammer said, he doesn't remember the word "liberation" being used as a reason for the invasion, I'm not going to disagree with him. I too have no memory of that word being used prior to the original invasion. Not that it wasn't used and I'm not saying that freeing the Iraqi people wasn't another good reason for invading Iraq. It just doesn't ring a bell right now.
I agree with you about the Democrats trying to twist historic fact on this issue. No reason to do that. The historic facts are part of the official record and can't changed or altered by anyone.
Good post & reference bump! ;-)
Thanks for the list. I'm going to copy it when I can get to a computer with a USB port.
What's the source?
You mean the "F" in O.I.F doesn't stand for "Find-the-weapons??????
First of all, thank you for engaging in an intelligent discussion. Somehow you citing his bad memory despite direct evidence at the time is not reassuring.
What do you want me to say? You want me to lie about my memory? LOL The word "liberation" wasn't in the pre-invasion lexicon. I can remember watching on TV, the advance of our fighting men&women in the armored divisions marching across the sands towards Baghdad. That is where I first remember hearing the word "liberation" being used. I thought it was somewhat inappropriate. Since the textboook definition of the word "liberation" is, "to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power, I didn't think it was a totally correct use that specific word. And I never thought I'd be arguing about it today with anyone.
Suffice it to say, the US military freed the Iraqi people. Now, lets keep our military bases active in Afghanistan and Iraq, and lets kill as many jihadists and islamofascists as we can, before they kill us. However, the idea of nation building and spreading democracy to the entire Islamic world, is something no POTUS could do in 300 years, let alone the three years Bush has left in his term.
You are a prime example of why I created my homepage. Get back to me on that matter, lol.
And you're a prime example of semantics gone wild. I read your FReeper Homepage. In all, Bush mentions the word "liberated" twice in everything you posted. If you want to say that is consistent with a general pre-invasion lexicon, I'll disagree with you. And if my last paragraph says anything it says we freed the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. In hindsight call it liberation, if you like.
More importantly, nation building is not in the cards and spreading democracy throughout the Islamic world is out of the question. If you think those are worthy objectives at this point, you're being unreasonable. Keep our military bases active and kill as many jihadists and islamofascists as we can. That is a reasonable goal.
{YAWN}
Agreed.....he always had the nutty idea that bringing democracy to the Middle East (shades of Clinton in Kosovo) was worth American blood and treasure. Now, given the Hamasistan experience, I wouldn't want to think he'd advertise it!
"That the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered... are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied."
--Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Salimankis, 1810.
"Had we carried but our own produce and brought back but our own wants, no nation would have troubled us. Our commercial dashers, then, have already cost us so many thousand lives, so many millions of dollars, more than their persons and all their commerce were worth... "
--Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:30
Speaking of semantics gone wild, you are nit-picking. Speaking of creating a "free Iraq" is the same as liberation, but you know that.
No where have I maintained that liberation was the reason, just a reason, and that is an accurate statement so you can pick away all you like but you can't change the truthfulness of the statement.
WMD were the central issue for invading Iraq and the main thrust of Bush&Company's public relations effort pre-invasion. You cite "liberation" as another reason for invading Iraq. Semantics aside. You want to make sure people don't forget that freeing the Iraqi people was one of many other issues mentioned in the Bush overall public relations effort. Okay.
Still, there is one important consideration. If you take the WMD issue out of the equation, there would have been no invasion of Iraq by US military forces. Period.
Of course WMD was a big reason. The fact that Iraq harbored terrorists was another big reason---the reasons were always multiple. I think you are correct that we are just having a communication problem.
My intention in posting this was NOT to say WMD wasn't a reason, rather it was to address the lie that President Bush made up liberation after the fact.
I agree. From the first part of your last post, we still are.
>>>>... the reasons were always multiple. LOL
Multiple reasons were part of the overall message, but the main thrust of the Bush message was the WMD issue. Without Saddam's WMD capability/programs, the Congress would never have given authoriztion for the invasion of Iraq and the American people wouldn't have gone along with it either. I have always defended PresBush, his WMD reasoning and the actual existence of WMD in Iraq even after the inavsion. That's what prompted my response at #3.
I agree with your last paragraph.
It sounds like we are in agreement.
I have always supported President Bush on all of the reasons, including WMD, and still do.
I think what happened here is that you interpreted my post as backing away from WMD and trying to thrust liberation into the spotlight. Again, my post was narrow in scope for one reason only: to highlight the lie that liberating Iraq was a post-war idea.
Have a good day.
Dittos. :^)
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.