Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Weatherman2020]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Hillary insisting al Queda and Saddamn were working together was great. Bill later stating Iran had WMDs when Bush took office was the dessert.

 

[Iceweasel]

LMAO!!! What are they going to do?? Send their 25,000 troops aboard one of their naval fleets. Are you shittin' me? We have a military more powerful than the next ten most powerful combined and only the goddam Republicans want to invade a faction which barely can exist 10,000 miles from here. That's one thing the Republicans are good at.....warmongering.

You learned nothing from recent events, I see. Or old ones for that matter.

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.

Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

 

[Stephanie]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

Well tell these Democrats that because THEY were clamoring for removal of Saddam BEFORE 9/11!


"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"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."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by several Democrats.

Watch thisfor pre-war quotes by John Kerry.

Plus obviously you never cared about these starving children.

Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

But you obviously KNOW these facts but ignore them because YOU don't care for starving children.

Remember .... All Saddam would have to do is agree he didn't have WMDs and the embargo would be lifted, children wouldn't starve and
there would be no Liberation of Iraq! So why did Saddam persist in NOT certifying?
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed support for ways to alleviate burdens on the Iraqi people. "We should support any attempts that will ease the impact of sanctions on the population and allow the people to have normal lives," he said.

Full sanctions will not be lifted until U.N. inspectors certify that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. For nearly 2 1/2 years, Baghdad has barred inspectors.
Lift Iraq embargo, Britain suggests

Of course they were and everyone who isn't a partisan hack knows that. they are just trying to take away from the fact they are going to LOSE their ass come the next election. so it's back to their standard of playing to their low info base of voters with basically NOTHING. We need to get out the fact that Obama bombed the hell out of the Middle east and is the reason for all that is HAPPENING with these refuges invading other countries and now the cause of this Terrorism. all threads like this trying to DISTRACT off what is really happening today under Obama

 

[Iceweasel]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq? Did they find any WMD? No? But you knew that already.

When was it destroyed? This is the year 2015, all your questions were answered decades ago.

Ah, a deflector. It's ok, I knew you had no answer.

I have a great answer. You're a fucking retard that has nothing but 20 year old talking points that were answered millions of times.

 

[Mudda]

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Sounds pretty vague, hardly a reason for an invasion. But go ahead and support the assertion.

“ We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. ” - April Gaspie, US Ambassador to Iraq.

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.

Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

It's always somebody else's fault to the lib. What intel did "the Republicans" have that Democrats didn't?

 

[Campbell]

LMAO!!! What are they going to do?? Send their 25,000 troops aboard one of their naval fleets. Are you shittin' me? We have a military more powerful than the next ten most powerful combined and only the goddam Republicans want to invade a faction which barely can exist 10,000 miles from here. That's one thing the Republicans are good at.....warmongering.

You learned nothing from recent events, I see. Or old ones for that matter.

You say.....put something of substance up here for the whole cyber world to see. Your stuff is empty and contains no information.

 

[Muhammed]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

It's dated December 18, 1998.

A lot of extremely ignorant people don't know that the USA and Iraq were currently at war on December 18, 1998.

 

[Mudda]

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

You are 20 years behind schedule. The inspectors were denied access many times AND they were being inspected for a reason. Either grow a brain and look stuff up or quit proving what an idiot you are.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq? Did they find any WMD? No? But you knew that already.

When was it destroyed? This is the year 2015, all your questions were answered decades ago.

Ah, a deflector. It's ok, I knew you had no answer.

I have a great answer. You're a fucking retard that has nothing but 20 year old talking points that were answered millions of times.

Still no valid answer? Par for the course in your case.

 

[Stephanie]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Republicans wanted war so bad the Democrats voted for it and enabled W to invade Iraq.

Being against the wars in the middle east, I just wanted to say thanks for nothing

Democrats voted for it based on false intelligence.

so they are that stupid? I mean did you SEE what the Clinton administration said? seriously and you all went and voted them back into office?

 

[healthmyths]

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

 

[Correll]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

 

[Stephanie]

LMAO!!! What are they going to do?? Send their 25,000 troops aboard one of their naval fleets. Are you shittin' me? We have a military more powerful than the next ten most powerful combined and only the goddam Republicans want to invade a faction which barely can exist 10,000 miles from here. That's one thing the Republicans are good at.....warmongering.

You learned nothing from recent events, I see. Or old ones for that matter.

partisan hacks wont ever face reality. that would burst their little bubble of that party they are a slave to

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

There's no reason to rehash the reasons. We both know them.

You have nothing, got it.

 

[Freewill]

Reasons as I remember, not that I agree nor would I have authorized the war but it was up to Congress and people like Mrs. Clinton to authorize removal by any means.

First WMD, they were found and we know Saddam had used them against the Kurds. There never would be a quantity found that satisfied the left wing.

The post 9/11 feeling that we had to do something and removing the Butcher of Baghdad seemed to be one of them.

Saddam's sons human right violation with their rape rooms and all.

Saddam's destabilization of the ME. He was NOT a stabilizing force as witnessed by his aggression against Kuwait and Iran.

Saddam funding suicide bombers. Despicable by any measure.

Now ask yourself this. Considering that Congress voted on the war and whether you or I agree for the reasoning that is what they did. Bush may have lied his ass off, who knows what he really believed, but Congress had access to all the intelligence that Mrs. Clinton and Bush had and they voted to remove Saddam by any means.

After you reconcile that in your head, reconcile why we are bombing Libya and Syria and supplying weapons to the rebels? Sure the risk to our men has been minimized by aerial bombing but none the less why are we there? Also considering the humanitarian crisis' in African countries that no one seems to care about why did we terror bomb Serbia for 72 days killing many ethnic Serbs?

 

[Mudda]

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

 

[Stephanie]

the here and now folks. you can go back and rehash Iraq until they are blue in the face. but here the reality. all of it and a video at the site

SNIP:
Obama Played a Role in the Paris ISIS Massacre

Jim Hoft Nov 15th, 2015 8:53 am

Guest post by Joe Hoft

The major media won’t mention this but the truth is clear – the Obama administration is to blame for the Paris attacks.

Here is what ultimately led to the murders this week in Paris:

** When Obama took over the Presidency he promised to remove US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and close down Gitmo. These terrorist friendly policies led to the creation of ISIS in Iraq after the US withdrew all troops. That is clear. Obama also released dozens of murderers from Gitmo. Then, when all hell broke loose in Iraq, Obama denied it was his idea to withdraw all the troops. This was another Obama lie.

all of it here:
Obama Played a Role in the Paris ISIS Massacre - The Gateway Pundit

snip:
Countries bombed by the U.S. under the Obama administration
By Kevin Liptak, CNN



Updated 9:38 PM ET, Tue September 23, 2014

• President Obama has ordered airstrikes in seven different countries
• Obama was close to ordering airstrikes in Syria in 2013
• Obama is the fourth president in a row to order airstrikes in Iraq

all of it here:
Countries bombed by the U.S. under Obama administration - CNNPolitics.com

 

[sealybobo]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Republicans forget what their positions were as soon as the GOP changes their position.

They forget it was them who came up with the same jobs Americans won't do and they forget another great example that they are the ones who drafted NAFTA. So of course they forget how badly they were trying to lead us to war in Iraq much like I'm sure they don't remember John McCain if he would have won the presidency wanted to go to war with Iran. Now I'm imagining the war on terror with a dismantled Iran. We would be f*****