President Clinton explains Iraq strike (FLASHBACK to 1998, worth reading)

CNN ^ | Dec. 16, 1998 | Bill Clinton

[FairOpinion]

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

[FairOpinion]

I rarely recommend reading anything Clinton said. But this is one of the few exceptions. Also this should be required reading for Daschle and all the Democrats attacking President Bush.

Note, Clinton said Saddam had his LAST chance -- Dec. 1998! The reasons Clinton gave are a thousand times more valid today, after 9-11, and if they were accepted by the Democrats then, why do they have the gall to criticize President Bush.

[nutmeg]

bump

[Free ThinkerNY]

Clintoon's speech should be printed up on toilet paper and shoved down the throats of every Anti-War Demonrat hypocrite who stabs our President in the back at every opportunity. Starting with that impotent runt, Tom Dasshole.

[weegee]

Can you find a statement from a "weeping" Senator "Sheets" Byrd regarding this 1998 Clinton speech?

Also as a reminder, he was what else was happening that week:

CNN Dec 1998 stories

Sunday, December 13, 1998
• Support for impeachment rises slightly after Judiciary vote
• Tributes pour in for Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles
• Nebraska's Kerrey bows out of 2000 presidential race
• Clinton says he will not resign
• Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles dies, praised as 'decent man'

Monday, December 14, 1998
• Former federal appeals judge A. Leon Higginbotham dies
• Former Rep. 'Mo' Udall remembered for humor, civility
• Washington waits for undecided lawmakers to make move
• Most Americans tuning out impeachment noise
• Democratic fund-raiser Chung given 5 years probation
• Clinton willing to compromise to avoid impeachment

Tuesday, December 15, 1998
• Dole suggests joint censure resolution
• Tripp claims she was threatened by Lewinsky
• House impeachment vote remains close
• New FDA commissioner sworn in
• McDougal says she would talk if Starr apologizes

Wednesday, December 16, 1998
• Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote
• Clinton: Iraq has abused its final chance
• Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
• Impeachment debate delayed
• How to contact undecided House members
• Thousands say good-bye to Chiles

Thursday, December 17, 1998
• Impeachment debate gets under way Friday
• House Republicans rally 'round Livingston
• Full text of Livingston statement
• Clinton denies Iraq attack was a diversion
• Impeachment and Iraq fill the president's time
• U.S. public gives Iraq attack mixed reviews
• Transcript: Clinton defends U.S. attack on Iraq
• House passes resolution in support of U.S. troops
• Poll: U.S. public endorses Clinton's actions on Iraq
• Poll: Clinton gets thumbs up from American public
• Hundreds head for Washington anti-impeachment vigil

Friday, December 18, 1998
• House poised to impeach Clinton
• Poll: Americans remain opposed to impeachment
• Highlights from the House impeachment debate
• Transcript: House debates articles of impeachment
• Miller won't return to Washington, calls impeachment vote 'foregone conclusion'
• Is censure a constitutional possibility?

Saturday, December 19, 1998
• House impeaches Clinton
• Reaction to impeachment mixed, emotional
• DeLay, Gingrich support Hastert for House speaker
• Clinton appeals for 'reasonable' compromise
• What's next in the impeachment process?
• Livingston bows out of the speakership
• Poll: Public still prefers censure
• Transcript: Clinton reacts to impeachment vote
• First lady delivers pep talk to Democrats
• White House says GOP's strategy is to get Clinton to resign

[FairOpinion]

"Can you find a statement from a "weeping" Senator "Sheets" Byrd regarding this 1998 Clinton speech?"

-----

I am glad you asked:

"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, said on Nov. 14, 1998.


Read the rest of the article from The Washington Times, which made this very point back in Sept. 2002.

Democrats singing different Iraq tune
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020916-73474262.htm


News Analysis
Democratic leaders who question President Bush's war-making plans to oust Saddam Hussein from power were aggressively urging President Clinton to take "all necessary and appropriate" military action to deal with Iraq in 1998.

When Saddam was defying access by U.N. weapons inspectors, Democrats were enthusiastically defending Mr. Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq in the midst of House impeachment proceedings against him in December 1998. Earlier that year, Mr. Clinton was warning of the dangers that Iraq posed to the United States and its allies, making a case that is very similar to Mr. Bush's justifications for military action now.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal," Mr. Clinton said on Feb. 18, 1998, in a major foreign policy address at the Pentagon that had Democrats rallying behind him.

Copies of Mr. Clinton's speech were being sent to Mr. Bush's Democratic critics in Congress last week, a White House official said Friday.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, who has been saying that Mr. Bush has yet to make a convincing case for military action at this time, asks, "What has changed in recent months or years" to go to war against Iraq now?

But 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.

A fuller examination by The Washington Times of the Democrats' rhetoric on Iraq at that time shows many Democrats were far more hawkish-sounding about Iraq than they are now.

"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, said on Nov. 14, 1998.

Last week, though, Mr. Byrd was sounding a lot more ecumenical toward Iraq. "We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this administration's intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq," he said.

"Perhaps the White House has the answers to the questions people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and daughters to fight and perhaps die in the sands of the Middle East," Mr. Byrd said.

"I agree with using military force," Mr. Dodd said on Feb. 3, 1998. Late last month, however, he was singing a different tune. Mr. Bush's plans for unilateral action against Iraq "raises some red flags. The military option should never be taken off the table, but it should not necessarily always be the first or only option we have," he said.

Mr. Kerry said on Feb. 23, 1998, that Iraq's weapons buildup was "a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential activities on a global basis."

But on Sept. 6, writing in an op-ed column in the New York Times, Mr. Kerry softened his tone, saying "regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war."

"Dodd, Daschle and many other Democrats were all much more hawkish about Iraq back then. They were really leading the charge in 1998, but they have certainly been more restrained in their enthusiasm this time around," Mr. Hayes said.

[ChemistCat]

I'd give anyone $50 who could post this at DU and get them to leave it up for 24 hours. But I think it's a safe bet that it wouldn't last 24 minutes.

[Paleo Conservative]

Note, Clinton said Saddam had his LAST chance -- Dec. 1998! The reasons Clinton gave are a thousand times more valid today, after 9-11, and if they were accepted by the Democrats then, why do they have the gall to criticize President Bush.

Because Clinton didn't really mean what he said. He was winking to leftist groups when he said it.

[Moonmad27]

Thanks for posting this - it'll be great to share with folks who may not remember.

[Happy2BMe]

"Clintoon's speech should be printed up on toilet paper and shoved down the throats of every Anti-War Demonrat hypocrite who stabs our President in the back at every opportunity. Starting with that impotent runt, Tom Dasshole."

Sounded so good I had to repeat it ..

[Happy2BMe]

What amazing irony - this really demonstrates the hypocrisy in our political system.

Ying and Yang will never meet.

[weegee]

BUMP

[weegee]

Because Clinton didn't really mean what he said. He was winking to leftist groups when he said it.

Because he had to show that he was still working for the American people when he was ducking impeachment.

[weegee]

Note, Clinton said Saddam had his LAST chance -- Dec. 1998! The reasons Clinton gave are a thousand times more valid today, after 9-11, and if they were accepted by the Democrats then, why do they have the gall to criticize President Bush.

"It just wasn't very hip to protest Clinton's wars"

[weegee]

I'd give anyone $50 who could post this at DU and get them to leave it up for 24 hours.

Psst. Uday is DU in pig latin. Pass it on...

[weegee]

BUMP

"...if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. "

[weegee]

>>I'd give anyone $50 who could post this at DU and get them to leave it up for 24 hours. But I think it's a safe bet that it wouldn't last 24 minutes.

From the DUmping ground opening screen:

We oppose this war.

We find it difficult to believe George W. Bush's claims that he has attacked Iraq reluctantly.

This administration has spent months attempting to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein is in some way responsible for 9/11. It has spent weeks in front of the U.N. arguing for war, going so far as to offer false information at key presentations. It has consistently ignored the reports of Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors. In the hurry to conquer Iraq, this administration has vilified nations and people who would urge caution.

We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent further terrorist attacks, when top intelligence officials agree that an invasion will likely increase the possibility of such attacks. We are told that we must invade Iraq to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, when evidence of Iraq's possession of such weapons is unclear. We are told that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and we must liberate his people, when there are many brutal dictators around the globe who are are guilty of the same crimes — the Bush administration even considers some of them our allies.

The United States stands virtually alone in the world right now. The actions of George W. Bush — supposedly a uniter, not a divider — have alienated the vast majority of people on this planet and caused turmoil, division, finger-pointing and anger against the United States. Anti-American terrorists must be dancing for joy.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we believe that the U.N. inspections should have been given more time. The United States sets a dangerous precedent when we attack first — a precedent which, sadly, our enemies will likely be only too happy to exploit.

We strongly support our troops, who are bravely putting their lives on the line in Iraq. They did not choose this war, nor are they responsible for it. We hope and pray that they can return home safely to their families as soon as possible. We hope casualties on both sides can be minimized, especially among civilians.

For the moment, we are taking a break from publishing articles on our homepage. We will resume publication when we feel it is appropriate, so feel free to submit articles. The message board will remain open.

We expect the traffic to this website to increase dramatically as a result of this war. In an effort to minimize our bandwidth, we have removed many of the graphical and design elements from our pages. Once traffic decreases somewhat, DU will return to the way it looked before.

---

Lying obstructionists. They are unAmerican as they flow the way the political winds blow.

[Libloather]

Wow...

[weegee]

BUMP to refresh memories

[Liz]

I wonder who wrote it for him?