Clinton Back's Bush's War in Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Wolfowitz statement to the House National Security Commitee, September 1998.


"The United States is unable or unwilling to pursue a serious policy in Iraq, one that would aim at liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyrannical grasp and free Iraq’s neighbors from Saddam’s murderous threats. Such a policy, but only such a policy, would gain real support from our friends in the region. And it might eventually even gain the respect of many of our critics who are able to see that Saddam inflicts horrendous suffering on the Iraqi people, but who see U.S. policy making that suffering worse through sanctions while doing nothing about Saddam.


Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam."


First in 1998 he was not advocating regime change by invasion, but by support for revolutuon.
Second, his rationales were not to demonstrate American power, but to end the threat to the region, end the sanctions, and to liberate the Iraqi people.

Now you may well believe that his motives were different, as I have my beliefs about Saddams connections to AQ. In neither case is there proof.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well perhaps an educated populace aswell.

Africa is a basket case. Iraq doesn't have to be one.

africa is a basket case. It doesnt have to be one. the Middle East is the second poorest region in the world after Africa. You cannot say that the people of Iraq are any more educated than those of Africa.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

Iraq literacy is at 40%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html#People

Zimbabwe's literacy rate is at 90%.

theres the proof.

[GePap]

Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum. They do it based on info. So, we know Bush is insular, that any evidence he gets and more importantly annalysis, will come form a closed circle. Then we figure, for the most part, this closed circle has set ideas about what should be done (save Powell) and they are the ones who select what the president hears and what he does not hear-and in doing so, limit the choices of the president, just as Much as Bush's notions and prejudices limit his choices.

It's a simple road from there.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
First in 1998 he was not advocating regime change by invasion, but by support for revolutuon.
Second, his rationales were not to demonstrate American power, but to end the threat to the region, end the sanctions, and to liberate the Iraqi people.

I think years of this failed policy (since we gave tens of millions to dissident who did nothing, it is obvious this was going no where) would show that was not a viable option.

Plus these are not his only comments on the subject at all.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


africa is a basket case. It doesnt have to be one. the Middle East is the second poorest region in the world after Africa. You cannot say that the people of Iraq are any more educated than those of Africa.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

Iraq literacy is at 40%

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html#People

Zimbabwe's literacy rate is at 90%.

theres the proof.

Petroleum. With the exception of Northern Africa, I see no hope for Africa.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Petroleum. With the exception of Northern Africa, I see no hope for Africa.

Taiwan has no petroleum. do you see no hope for it? nor does S. Korea, or Malasia, or Singapore. No hope for them?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Taiwan has no petroleum. do you see no hope for it? nor does S. Korea, or Malasia, or Singapore. No hope for them?

Those countries do have a tech sector.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Those countries do have a tech sector.

only because it got developed. before, they had nothing. same thing can happen in africa.

[GePap]

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. Armitage 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

dated January 26, 1998

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Lets look at the list of signers

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


only because it got developed. before, they had nothing. same thing can happen in africa.

Not with the AIDs epidemic.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

4 are familiar, and one rings a bell but i cant remember why

[GePap]

Also, this link, with Wolfie's full statements. Note the idea of invading southern Iraq to create a "safe zone":

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm

[GePap]

And this this letter to Newt and Lott:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

In general ,the New American Century is the source of all this, so people should explore the site to get a good idea of neoconservative FP ideology. Cause this is one of the fountains of it.

[GePap]

Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
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

The bolded are people I know to be in the amdinistration.

Many of the others were contantly on Tv advocating the war. Woolsey used to be head of the CIAS, Bennett was in Reagan and Bush the elder's admin., many are writers or columnists.

[Spiffor]

Aren't Perle and Kagan part of the admin too?