• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Snubbart-Let's Jog Your Memory

Mike

Well-known member
Vol.60/No.32 September 16, 1996


Clinton Bombs Iraq With Solid Bipartisan Support

BY MARTÍN KOPPEL


With solid bipartisan support, the Clinton administration launched a military assault against Iraq September 3.

Under the pretext of protecting the Kurdish population in northern Iraq, President William Clinton ordered two rounds of cruise missile strikes, expanded the imperialist-enforced "no- fly zone" in the south to the edge of Baghdad, and threatened further attacks. He announced that limited oil sales by the Iraqi government were now frozen.

As U.S.-led forces began their expanded air patrols over southern Iraq, a U.S. F-16 warplane attacked an Iraqi radar station September 4.

The White House quickly proclaimed the U.S. military move a success later that day, pointing to the withdrawal of most Iraqi troops from the Kurdish region. Pentagon officials stated, that the expanded no-fly zone would be permanently enforced, setting the stage for further clashes with Iraqi forces.

With war emerging as a decisive question in the presidential campaign - as with previous U.S. elections - Republican contender Robert Dole and other big-business politicians quickly fell in line behind the Democratic commander-in-chief.

While numerous governments in the world criticized the U.S. assault, the sharpest condemnation came from the revolutionary government of Cuba, which termed it a "criminal aggression." Calling the missile strikes an "excessive, unjustified, and arbitrary use of force," Cuban foreign ministry spokesperson Marianela Ferriol stated, "This fresh attack violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq."

Washington's "Operation Desert Strike" began in the morning of September 3 when two navy ships and two B-52 bombers fired 27 cruise missiles against air defense facilities in southern Iraq. The warships are part of a U.S. force stationed in the Persian Gulf and the B-52s flew out from Guam, a U.S. colony in the Pacific. Hours later, three navy ships and a submarine in the Gulf launched another 17 missiles.

Clinton also declared a 60-mile extension of the wide swath of territory in southern Iraq where Washington, London, and Paris decreed a ban on flights by Iraqi aircraft following the 1990-91 Gulf War. At that time, claiming to protect the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the largely Shiite population in the south, they imposed "no-fly zones" above the 36th Parallel and below the 32nd Parallel, in addition to a "no drive" zone for Iraqi troops in the south.

As of September 4, Washington widened the southern exclusion zone to the 33rd Parallel - from the Kuwaiti border to the outskirts of Baghdad - barring the Iraqis from using aircraft in half their national territory. U.S. and British pilots are now flying warplanes over this new area, putting two Iraqi airfields and a major training facility under their surveillance.

A U.S. warplane in this area destroyed an Iraqi radar station on the first day of the expanded patrols. U.S. defense secretary William Perry said the radar was bombed because it had "illuminated one of our planes." He later acknowledged, however, that the station was north of the no-fly zone.

A huge imperialist military force remains on alert in the region. The U.S. force includes 300 warplanes within striking distance. Washington has 23,000 troops, including 15,000 sailors and marines, aboard its Persian Gulf fleet. It has another 6,000 troops in the region, mostly based in Saudi Arabia, and thousands more in the area for military "exercises."

The U.S. cruise missiles targeted sites in the Iraqi towns of Tallil, Nasiriya, Kut, and Iskandariya. Despite claims by Clinton that only military facilities were hit, the Iraqi government reported that some residential areas had also been bombed, with six people killed and 26 injured so far.


`Iraq is sovereign country'
In a September 3 interview on CNN, Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz condemned the military attacks and patrols over Iraqi territory. "Now, unilaterally, the United States and Britain have decided to impose another extension of a no-fly zone on a sovereign country," he said. "American and British interference in this matter is illegitimate. This is Iraq."

The Iraqi ambassador to Greece, Issam Saud Khalil, condemned the U.S. missile attacks. He called the U.S. government "the new criminals of the modern age" and "policemen of world disorder."

Washington justified its initial war moves saying it was acting in defense of Kurds after the Iraqi government sent troops into the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. The Kurds, an oppressed people living in parts of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, have long fought for national self-determination and against repression by the capitalist regimes in all these countries. In Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), led by Jalal Talabani, have fought for Kurdish autonomy.

Washington - which has always opposed the Kurdish people's fight for an independent state - set up a "Kurdish enclave" in northern Iraq after the Gulf War, seeking to bring the KDP and PUK under its thumb in the hope of undermining the Iraqi regime. In the past two years, however, a struggle for political control has erupted between these two bourgeois parties. In a setback for Washington, the PUK, which had previously aligned itself more closely with Washington, turned to the Iranian government, while the KDP decided to seek support from Baghdad.

The Iraqi government asserts it sent troops at the request of the KDP in its battle with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. As the rival parties fought each other, Iraqi troops seized Erbil August 31, routing the PUK fighters. After Washington's military threats, Baghdad's forces began to pull out of Erbil.

At a September 3 press conference, Clinton stated that Washington was responding to Iraqi repression against the Kurds. He added, however, that Washington's goal was to "increase America's ability to contain Iraq over the long run....When our interest in the security of our friends and allies is threatened, we will act with force if necessary."

In a news conference the same day, Perry said, "The issue is not simply the Iraqi attack on Erbil," adding that the U.S. government did not want to get mired in the factional fighting among the Kurdish groups. Perry emphasized that Washington's priority was "protection of the flow of oil" in the Mideast. The government of Saddam Hussein, he stated, was "a threat to security and stability" in the region.

An unnamed Pentagon official told the New York Times, "This has nothing to do with the Kurds and everything to do with Saddam."


Bipartisan support
The Clinton administration's rapid military escalation in the Persian Gulf received bipartisan support. On September 3 Republican presidential candidate Dole declared, "I stand foursquare behind our men and women in uniform." He added, "I trust this is the beginning of decisive action to limit the power and arrogance of Saddam Hussein."

Speaking to U.S. war veterans, Dole declared, "In matters like this, all of us think not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans."

On the campaign trail, Dole had initially attacked Clinton for "weak leadership." Dole's senior advisor, Sen. John McCain, had mocked "this Administration's feckless photo-op foreign policy." Within 18 hours, however, the Dole camp dropped this criticism like a hot potato, as they concluded such statements "had left the Republican candidate subject to accusations that he was undermining national security interests at a time of crisis," the New York Times reported.

Dole campaign spokesman Nelson Warfield said Dole had telephoned Clinton September 3 to assure him that he would not make any remarks on Iraq "designed to offend the president." Dole would "stand by the president and our troops," Warfield added.

Other Democrats and Republicans fell in step with support for the war effort. Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott has worked with his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Tom Daschle, to draft a resolution supporting the U.S. military moves against Iraq.

Ross Perot, who is running as the Reform Party's presidential candidate, was critical of Clinton's actions. "War is not a place for politicians to create a positive image and get a bump in the polls." He pointed to the problems the current administration has faced in its military interventions in Somalia and Bosnia.


Clinton's war speech
Clinton set the political framework for the assault on Iraq in his August 29 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where he formally accepted the Democratic nomination for president.

"We cannot become the world's policeman," Clinton declared, "but where our values and our interests are at stake and where we can make a difference, we must act and we must lead." He referred to his administration's sending of U.S. troops to Haiti and Bosnia to illustrate the point.

Clinton assailed the governments of Iran and Libya, accusing them of "terrorism." He bragged about the law he had signed imposing sanctions on foreign companies that invest in those countries, which he vowed "will pay a price from the United States."

The president singled out the Cuban government for attack, saying that "Cuba must finally join the community of democracies." Repeating the false claim that Cuba is undemocratic, the Clinton administration has in the past four years taken a number of aggressive measures against the workers and farmers government in that Caribbean nation.

The aggressiveness of the Clinton White House in launching these war moves abroad has been paralleled by its spearheading of the bipartisan assault on the basic social gains of working people at home. At the Democratic Party convention, prominent liberal figures like Mario Cuomo, Edward Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson spoke as critics of Clinton's welfare "reform" law, while urging a vote for the Democratic incumbent as a supposed lesser evil to the Republicans. In so doing, these liberal forces played an important role in greasing the rails for further attacks on workers' social gains - as well as the administration's current military moves.

Near the end of his acceptance speech Clinton made a demonstrative point about "some African-American members of our Special Forces at Fort Bragg," North Carolina, whose doors, he stated, had recently been defaced with swastikas.

Saying that "they do not deserve to have swastikas on their doors," Clinton then asserted, "If I walk off this stage tonight and call them on the telephone and tell them to go halfway around the world and risk their lives for you and be there by tomorrow at noon, they will do it."

White House officials later told the press that even before that speech, the administration had been taking steps that laid the groundwork for the military attack on Iraq. On August 28 Clinton had authorized a diplomatic note warning Baghdad against a military move in northern Iraq. The day after Clinton's speech, administration officials made the first public threat that U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf were "prepared to deploy."

On August 31 the White House approved a plan for a military strike in southern Iraq and the extension of the no-fly zone. The justification for these moves was a 1991 United Nations Security Council resolution demanding that the Iraqi government end repression against the Kurds.

The following day, the administration reported the initial mobilization of the U.S. armada in the Persian Gulf. UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali reported he had suspended a recent agreement to allow Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every six months to pay for food and medicine. For the past six years, Iraq has been blocked from selling oil by a U.S.-orchestrated economic embargo.

By Labor Day, September 2, the White House announced its plan to carry out a military assault, which was launched in the early hours of the following morning.

Of the four other governments making up the United Nations Security Council, only London expressed its complete support for the U.S. missile strikes against Iraq. The imperialist governments of Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all backed the U.S. move.

Paris, on the other hand, criticized the Pentagon's military attack. It demanded that Baghdad pull back its forces from the north but called for a resumption of talks to implement the UN resolution allowing Iraq to resume its oil sales. The French government is Iraq's biggest creditor.

The Russian government, which had backed the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 1990-91, called the U.S. air strikes "an inappropriate and unacceptable reaction." Russian foreign minister Yevgeny Primakov stated, "The attacks cannot be supported by anyone at all, except those who put domestic politics including pre-electoral questions above all else." The Chinese government expressed its "grave concerns" about the U.S. actions.

Paris and Moscow opposed an effort by Washington and London to garner support in the UN Security Council for a resolution condemning Iraq.

In the Middle East, only the Kuwaiti regime expressed "full understanding" for the attack, as did the Israeli government. The governments of Egypt and Syria, Washington's main Arab partners during the Gulf War, criticized the U.S. assault and spoke in defense of Iraq's sovereignty. The governments of Iran, Jordan, Libya, and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian Council, all condemned or distanced themselves from Washington's action. The Saudi regime remained silent. And the Turkish regime opposed the suspension of the oil sales.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey refused to allow its bases to be used for the U.S. strikes. Instead, Washington had to fly its B-52 bombers from Guam, halfway around the world.


`Much has changed since Gulf War'
As an article in the September 4 Wall Street Journal put it, "Indeed, much in the region has changed since the U.S. rallied a coalition in 1990 to drive Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.... The U.S. increasingly may have to go it alone - such as by launching cruise missiles rather than leading an international coalition."

At that time, Washington used Baghdad's invasion of Kuwait as a justification for leading a massive military assault against Iraq. The U.S. rulers' political objectives in the Gulf War, however, were to overthrow the Hussein regime and establish a pro-U.S. protectorate there. Washington hoped to bolster its dominance in the oil-rich region, and to do so at the expense of its imperialist allies which are also its competitors.

What unfolded was a U.S.-organized slaughter that left as many as 150,000 people dead. During the final invasion launched on Feb. 24, 1991, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were butchered as they fled along the road from Kuwait to Basra, Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of working people were left maimed, homeless, or displaced throughout the region.

But Washington failed to achieve its political goals, ending up with a fiasco on its hands. The U.S. government did not overthrow the Iraqi government; in fact, Hussein outlasted President George Bush. Instead of assuring stability, the war exacerbated all the tensions and conflicts in the Middle East, leading to greater social volatility and setting new, uncontrollable forces in motion.

In the wake of the war, the Kurdish and Shiite populations rebelled against Baghdad. But they were set up by the Bush administration, which after urging them to revolt, allowed Baghdad's forces to massacre them. Washington, London, and Paris sent troops to drive thousands of Kurdish refugees, who were fleeing into Turkey, back into northern Iraq, where the imperialist powers established the current Kurdish "enclave."

The political shifts in the Middle East in the subsequent five years have caused a nightmare for U.S. imperialism. The Iranian government, which remains at odds with Washington, has increased its political influence in the region. On the other hand, most of the U.S. allies have been wracked by increasing instability, as underlined by the June bombing of a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia and the food riots in Jordan in August.

The Turkish government, a long-time reliable U.S. ally, has a new administration that recently signed a trade deal with Iran against Washington's will.

And the Israeli regime, despite its combination of military repression and political negotiations with the Palestine Liberation Organization, has failed to quell the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

In a September 4 article, Times columnist Thomas Friedman commented on the dilemma facing the U.S. rulers today. "The half-finished gulf war and the half-finished Arab-Israeli peace process and the half-baked U.S. containment policies of both Iran and Iraq... have failed to produce a new order the Middle East," he wrote.

"Instead, they have contributed to a regional disorder, in which Washington doesn't have a united front to support its strategies or many partners to help manage its contradictions."
 

Mike

Well-known member
How about this one Snubby?:

"According to Laurie Mylrone, Bill Clinton's Iraq adviser in 1993, Clinton himself responded to the first attack on the WTC by bombing Iraq. "He said publicly that the U.S. strike on Iraqi intelligence headquarters was retaliation for Saddam's attempt to kill [ex-president] George Bush," NewsMax reported Mylroie as saying in October 2002. "[But] he also meant it for the Trade Center bombing.

"Clinton believed that the attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters would deter Saddam from all future strikes against the United States," she disclosed, and then conceded, "It was hopelessly naïve."

In 1996, Clinton bombed Iraq yet again. Orchestrated in early September 1996, the bombings walloped several civilian targets and military facilities -- without the approval of the U.N. or any international alliance, for that matter. The Iraqi government reported dozens of deaths, and millions of dollars worth of damages. Sound familiar?

Of course, these attacks were not a first for Clinton, who had already been viciously callous to the citizens of Iraq. As the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported a year earlier in 1995, as many as 576,000 Iraqi youth died as a result of United Nation sanctions that the US had imposed and supported since 1991. This conservative tally did not even include the over 90,000 annual hospital deaths that the World Health Organization estimated would have not happened had Clinton not compelled the UN to enforce harsh sanctions against the Iraqi people. Sadly, it seems the litmus test for U.S. presidential aspirants must include the will to brutalize Iraqis.

Then in 1998, Clinton retaliated for an East African U.S. Embassy bombing by firing 70 cruise missiles at a suspected bin Laden terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and heaving another 17 missiles at a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. The plant was destroyed, and most likely was responsible for thousands of deaths.

Later that year when Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act -- drafted by the same hawkish neocons that helped thrust forth Bush's own Iraq policy including Republican staffer Randy Scheunemann, Donald Rumsfeld, former-CIA director R. James Woosley, and Ahmad Chalabi into law later that year -- the US outlined its ultimate objective for its involvement in Iraq. That is, extinguishing the life of Saddam Hussein and his government."
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
What is it that you are trying refresh my memory of? That we have been at war with Iraq since 1991? You will have to do something more than these posts. As they stated, there were sanctions and no fly zones and saddam's every movement was watched. No one, least of all me, has ever stated that saddam did not need to go. The main problem most thinking people in this country have with this war is that it came when there was a much more pressing problem. "We will not stop until the ones responsible for this act are either killed or captured." Words from george w. bush shortly after 911 uttered while standing in the rubble of the Twin Towers. He, for all practical purposes DID stop and pulled the majority of our military resources away from the stated mission to go after someone who was in his sights, because, as President Clinton said, saddam tried to kill daddy bush. So, miki, you spin it anyway you want.
 

Mike

Well-known member
the US outlined its ultimate objective for its involvement in Iraq. That is, extinguishing the life of Saddam Hussein and his government."

Spin? :lol: This was written during the Clinton years. :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Mike you're barking up a blank tree. He don't get it.

No he don't. :shock:



The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein
In June of 1997, Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts. They interfered with UNSCOM air operations and denied and delayed access of inspectors to sites. In September, they burned documents at sites while inspectors watched outside the front entrance. By mid-November, Saddam Hussein had demanded an end to U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq and called on American inspectors to leave Iraq.1 Iraqis also began moving equipment that could produce weapons of mass destruction out of the range of video cameras inspectors had installed inside key industrial facilities.2

At first, the Clinton administration adopted a generally reserved tone toward Saddam's provocations. "We believe that he needs to fulfill all the Security Council obligations and that that is an appropriate way to deal with him," commented Secretary Albright at a November 5 press conference with the German foreign minister.3

The next day Secretary Cohen held a ceremony unrelated to Iraq, but, citing "an unusual array" of journalists present, he also spoke on Iraq. "t's imperative that Iraq comply with U.N. mandates," said Cohen, but "the task right now, however, is to persuade them to cease and desist from their obstruction." And when asked what would be the consequences should Saddam not comply, Cohen said simply, "it's important that we not speculate what those reactions might be."4

Striking a similar tone on November 10 at the Pentagon, Vice President Gore stated that "Saddam has taken steps that interfere with the ability of the inspection team to carry out its mission." He added, "The procedure chosen to deal with this situation is to engage him in discussions in which he can be made aware that this is not a smart thing for him to do, and he ought to change his mind."5

But Saddam remained defiant. So on Friday, November 14, President Clinton and his top advisors met at the White House and decided to launch a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq.


"Prepare the Country for War"

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7

On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."8

"The War of Words Grows; U.S.: Poisons Are World Threat" headlined the New York Daily News Monday morning.9 CBS News said the White House had begun "a new tack, warning in the darkest possible terms of the damage which Saddam Hussein could inflict with his chemical and biological weapons."10 And in "America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."11

This message was echoed in a series of remarks President Clinton delivered the same week.


"I say this not to frighten you"

In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."12

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13

On November 19, at a White House signing ceremony for an adoption bill, Clinton warned that Iraq must "let the weapons inspectors resume their work to prevent Iraq from developing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." To achieve this, "we are prepared to pursue whatever options are necessary" because, Clinton added, "I do not want these children we are trying to put in stable homes to grow up into a world where they are threatened by terrorists with biological and chemical weapons."14

In Washington, D.C., November 21, Clinton applauded the return of UNSCOM inspectors that day (after a three week absence) "to proceed with their work without interference, to find, to destroy, to prevent Iraq from rebuilding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to carry them." He added: "We must not let our children be exposed to the indiscriminate availability and potential abuse and actual use of the biological and chemical and smaller-scale nuclear weapons which could terrorize the 21st century," said Clinton.15

But with the return of the UNSCOM, Iraqi officials began delaying entry of inspectors to "sensitive sites."16


"Clear and Present Danger"

On November 25, the Pentagon released "Proliferation: Threat and Response." A few things stand out in the report. In the section on Iraq, the word "terrorism" (in any form) is not mentioned. It is, though, cited in the sections on Libya and Iran. The report stated that Iraq "probably has hidden" chemical munitions, "may retain … some missile warheads" from its old biological program, and could jump-start production of chemical and biological weapons "should UN sanctions and monitoring end or be substantially reduced."17

Cohen began his press briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill."

Asked whether Iraq had moved "any of his programs underground into these hardened facilities," Cohen responded that he didn't know whether Saddam had "moved these chemicals or biological agents and materials --- not only the agents themselves, but documentation .... So we don't know whether they've moved them into hardened shelters or underground bunkers." He spoke of Iraqi weapons as fact, not a probability or likelihood.18

By mid-December, the Pentagon had announced that all members of the military would be vaccinated against anthrax with the first vaccinations going to those "assigned or deployed to the high threat areas of Southwest Asia and Northeast Asia."19 At the same, time, Iraqi officials announced a ban on inspections of "presidential sites" and restricted access to other "sensitive sites." With the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approaching on December 31, the administration decided that any military strike had to wait. "Dragging things out to get past Ramadan" is how a senior Clinton official characterized administration policy during this period to the Washington Post.20


1998

With the end of Ramadan on January 29 and Saddam still failing to comply with his commitment to the U.N. to disarm, Clinton officials resumed public efforts to make the case on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Secretary Albright flew to the Middle East to drum up support for possible war.21 "Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community," she told journalists in Bahrain.22

A few days later, on February 7, Clinton, joined by Prime Minister Blair, devoted his Saturday radio address to Iraq. Noting the two were speaking from the same room where FDR and Churchill "charted our path victory in World War II," Clinton told Americans that we now face "a new nexus of threats, none more dangerous than chemical and biological weapons, and the terrorists, criminals and outlaw states that seek to acquire them." He warned that "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapon," "has the "missiles that can deliver them" and "has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons."23

How fast Saddam could "restart production" was discussed in a 10-page U.S. Government white paper on "Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction" released on February 13.24 "In the absence of UNSCOM inspectors," the report stated, "Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production with[in] a few weeks, full-production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf war production levels - including VX - within two or three years." It had a chart listing how many were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons in the 1980s. It noted that although inspections severely curtailed Iraq's wmd programs, Saddam "is actively trying to retain what remains of his wmd programs while wearing down the will of the Security Council to maintain sanctions." But, "even a small residual force of operational missiles armed with biological or chemical warheads would pose a serious threat to neighboring countries and US military forces in the region."25

It detailed the biological and chemical agents and munitions for which Iraq had not accounted. It stated that Iraq "provided no hard evidence to support claims that it destroyed all of its BW agents and munitions in 1991" and "has not supplied adequate evidence to support its claim that it destroyed all of its CW agents and munitions."26

The white paper also discussed Iraqi nuclear activity.

Under the White Paper's "nuclear weapons" section, it observed: "Baghdad's interest in acquiring nuclear or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished"; "we have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material"; "Iraq continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraq's security and intelligence services in obtaining external assistance and coordinating postwar concealment."27

On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon. The president declared that the great danger confronting the U.S. and its allies was the "threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." Before the Gulf War of 1991, he noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people."28

Clinton furthered explained that:

Iraq "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 I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. . . .

"Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits . . . .

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. . . .

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 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. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. . . . 29


"Madonna and Child Saddam Hussein-style"

On February 18, Secretaries Cohen and Albright and National Security Advisor Berger held a global town hall meeting on the campus of Ohio State University. They noted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had used them.

"Saddam Hussein," Cohen said "has developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people as well as Iran. I have a picture which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here's a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call Madonna and child Saddam Hussein-style."

Berger declared that "in the 21st century, the community of nations may see more and more of this very kind of threat that Iraq poses now, a rogue state with biological and chemical weapons."

The "record will show that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction," Albright stated, "which he's clearly not collecting for his own personal pleasure, but in order to use." She continued: "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."30


"If the world had been firmer with Hitler"

At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." In answering a question, she sketched some of the "worse" case scenarios should Saddam "break out of the box that we kept him in."

One "scenario is that he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction."

"Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction -- that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons."

One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far -- that he can do untold damage." "If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier," said Albright, "then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War."31

Four days later, February 23, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reached a deal with Saddam for inspections of presidential sites. The Security Council endorsed the agreement on March 2 with UNSC Resolution 1154, which warned of the "severest consequences" should Iraq break the agreement. But within a few months, Saddam was again obstructing U.N. inspectors.

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech reminiscent of the comments he made on February 17 at the Pentagon.

The president warned Annapolis graduates that our enemies "may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction - not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries." The U.S. will work to "prevent the spread and use of biological weapons and to protect our people in the event these terrible weapons are ever unleashed by a rogue state or terrorist group or an international criminal organization." This protection will include "creating stockpiles of medicines and vaccines to protect our civilian population against the kind of biological agents our adversaries are most likely to obtain or develop."32

On August 5, 1998, Iraq halted no-notice inspections by UNSCOM but allowed UNSCOM's monitoring activities to continue.33

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed public law 105-235, "Iraqi Breach of International Obligations," which had passed the Senate unanimously and by a vote of 407-6 in the House.34 Among the law's findings: "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security." It concluded:

"Resolved ... [t]hat the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."35

Six days later, August 20, the U.S. launched missiles strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. According to the September 1, 1998 Washington Post, a U.S. intelligence operation "to investigate Sudan's nascent chemical weapons program ultimately linked Al Shifa [a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory] to Iraq's chemical weapons programs...."36


Regime Change

On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "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."39

Two week later, November 14, Iraq resumed cooperation with UNSCOM, averting U.S and British air strikes.40

On December 8, National Security Advisor Berger delivered an address at Stanford University on U.S. policy on Iraq. He stated:

"As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in which to invest.

"Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on commerce and cooperation.

"For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them."

"We will continue to contain the threat Iraq poses to its region and the world. But for all the reasons I have mentioned, President Clinton has said that over the long-term, the best way to address the challenge Iraq poses is 'through a government in Baghdad - a new government - that is committed to represent and respect its people, not repress them; that is committed to peace in the region.' Our policy toward Iraq today is to contain Saddam, but also to oppose him."41

On December 9, Iraq again resumed obstructing inspection activities and shortly thereafter UNSCOM withdrew inspectors from Iraq.42


Desert Fox and a "threat of the future"

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq. "I acted quickly because, as my military advisors stressed, the longer we waited, the more time Saddam would have to disburse his forces and protect his arsenal," Clinton explained in his December 19 radio address to the nation. "Our mission is clear: to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction."43 (It should be noted that on July 27, 2003 President Clinton assessed the effectiveness of Desert Fox. He stated: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know." )44

Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign "looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission." She answered:

"We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.45

Secretary Cohen replied much the same way to comments made in March of 1998 by Senator Campbell of Colorado, who chided the administration for not keeping the "coalition together" during an Appropriations Committee hearing. Cohen responded:

And that's one of the reasons why you haven't seen the kind of solidarity that we had before; much harder when the case is the threat of weapons of mass destruction versus Saddam Hussein setting off 600 oil wells in the field of Kuwait and seeing that kind of threat, which is real and tangible, as opposed to one which might take place some time in the future, as far as the use of his chemical and biologicals.46

On December 19, Saddam Hussein declared that inspectors would never be allowed back in Iraq.

------------------------------------
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Mike you're barking up a blank tree. He don't get it.

Get it ??? You expect him to get it??

I doubt that will ever happen!! :D :D :D
Have to remember these liberals do not recall anything that pusts them in a bad light :D :D
Most of them are a bunch of bricks short of a full load :D :D

Can't wait to hear what they have to say about me now :D :D :D :D
 
Top