Skip to comments.
Bush Sends Iraq Text to Congress
AP/Yahoo ^
| 9/19/2002
| Matt Kelley
Posted on 09/19/2002 11:53:25 AM PDT by ArcLight
President Bush ( news - web sites) asked Congress Thursday for authority to use "all means he determines to be appropriate, including force" to disarm and overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites), saying the United States will take action on its own if the U.N. Security Council balks.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; congress; iraq; un
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
HINT: THEY'RE NOT REPUBLICANS! ;-) Like you didn't already know that...
To: Wait4Truth
Yeah, I had noticed that. ; )
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Cable225; VRWC_minion
Jeez, do guys even read the contexts of people's posts before treating us to your dimwitted talking points? Read my post again. The only thing I'd want to "restrain" Bush from doing is playing games when he should be fighting a war - you know, the kind of thing that's happened when we've gone to war
without declarations?
Pay attention to what you're reading.
23
posted on
09/19/2002 3:26:03 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: CPL BAUM
I love it when a plan comes together.
To: DugwayDuke
Back in the good old days, this would have been called an Ultimatum.Yet another word that causes the modern sophisticated political class to reach for their smelling salts.
25
posted on
09/19/2002 3:29:54 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
Pay attention to what you're reading.If you will, then we have a deal. Where did I mention your name?
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
You're exempted from my screed then. You were approvingly responding to someone who was criticizing me, so it sounded like you agreeing with his criticism. Sorry about the confusion.
27
posted on
09/19/2002 3:36:02 PM PDT
by
inquest
To: inquest
There are a lot of people here who can't seem to understand that President Bush is not the enemy. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.
To: Miss Marple
in 1998, Mr. Daschle was beating the war drums in the Senate and co-sponsoring a war resolution that urged Mr. Clinton "to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
That resolution was co-sponsored by some Democrats who are now voicing criticisms or at least doubts about Mr. Bush's war plans, including Sens. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
In defense of the resolution, Mr. Daschle said it would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with their own agreements and with international law."
Explaining the Clinton administration's arguments for military action at that time, Mr. Daschle said at a news conference on Feb. 11, 1998, "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily."
Mr. Daschle now says that Mr. Bush "strengthened his case" in his Thursday address to the United Nations, but he remains dubious about much of Mr. Bush's plans for war against Iraq. "What will be the reaction of the international community? What will be the degree of support within the United Nations? We're not prepared to make any commitment until we've had more of an opportunity to answer these questions," he told reporters Thursday.
"Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party," writes Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard magazine, which dug up some of the statements made by Mr. Daschle and other Senate Democrats at the time Mr. Clinton was contemplating military action against Iraq.
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:g9vah2luMZwJ:www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm+DASCHLE+co-sponsored+for+Clinton+back+in+1998&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
29
posted on
09/20/2002 3:17:30 AM PDT
by
kcvl
To: Miss Marple
Democrats for Regime Change
From the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002, Volume 008, Issue 01
THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.
Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein
"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."
The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.
But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.
OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.
But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles.
"What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything.
Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Emphasis added.)
Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.
Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?
Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998:
"Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.
"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."
Clinton was on a roll:
"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "
More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
What more needs to be said?
Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.
30
posted on
09/20/2002 3:19:44 AM PDT
by
kcvl
To: Miss Marple
Democrats Supported War on Iraq in 1998
AP
Then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle supported action against Iraq in 1998.
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
By Carl Cameron
WASHINGTON — Democrats are expressing reluctance and sometimes outright opposition to President Bush's plans for action against Iraq, even though they were on board with former President Clinton's plans to attack the rogue nation four years ago.
"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us," Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.
"I know the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well," he added.
The words came within weeks of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and a dozen other Democrats.
The resolution condemned "in the strongest possible terms" Iraq's continued threat to international peace and security, and urged then-President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs."
Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts.
These days, they and other Democrats express doubt and reluctance to use force, but four years ago, Democrats in the House and Senate got downright hawkish, advocating an attack if Saddam Hussein did not comply with every detail of all the United Nations' weapons sanctions.
"If not, it's back to business. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary," Daschle said in a speech in late February 1998.
"I think that it is going to have to be more than a mere thump, as we say in Missouri. It's going to have to be a major, major strike," said Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton.
Congress never voted on the resolution urging force because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein promised again to comply with the U.N. sanctions at the last minute. He broke that promise only a few days later when he threw the U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq altogether.
After that event four years ago, Daschle said that "if nothing changes, the use of force at some point would be inevitable."
But four days ago, Daschle sounded a different tune.
"What has changed over the course of the last 10 years that brings this country to the belief that it has to act in a pre-emptive fashion?"
What has changed by most accounts is that after four years of continued weapons development, Saddam is even more dangerous than he was when Daschle was advocating military action.
What also has changed is the resident of the White House, a Republican president, who maintains very high popularity ratings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62513,00.html
31
posted on
09/20/2002 3:25:26 AM PDT
by
kcvl
To: kcvl
32
posted on
09/20/2002 3:27:58 AM PDT
by
kcvl
To: kcvl
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance
December 16, 1998
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
To: The Great Satan
THANKS!
34
posted on
09/20/2002 3:35:37 AM PDT
by
kcvl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
