Clinton on 1998 Iraq
The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe will never print this letter. The quote below is very long, but stay with it; I left only the really poignant parts and look how long it is! You can "google" as I suggest for the full text. I think the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is used seven times. Quick, call the Great Equivocator!
Editor,
During an address to the Nation defending his decision authorizing air strikes in Iraq on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said (all italics are mine for emphasis), "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . . their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs . . . their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . (UN weapons inspectors) are highly professional experts from dozens of countries . . . their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability . . . other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them; not once, but repeatedly . . . unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war . . . against civilians . . . even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . Saddam's deception has defeated (weapons inspector's) effectiveness . . . this situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere . . . and so we had to act and act now . . . let me explain why . . . first, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past . . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people . . . first, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq . . . the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War . . . the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . may God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America (google "Clinton and December and Iraq" for the full text)."
I do not believe President Clinton "lied", "cherry-picked intelligence", "misled", or "exaggerated" any aspect about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Maybe Sen. Hillary Clinton thinks her husband lied . . . about, Iraq, I mean. Maybe Sen. John F. Kerry thinks President Clinton cherry-picked. Maybe the editorial staff at the Boston Globe thinks President Clinton misled and exaggerated. Or, just maybe, the hate-Bush crowd believes whatever they have to believe in order to justify their hatred. Their manufactured hatred doesn't make us any safer as a Country and it certainly doesn't help our troops in the field. I agree with President Clinton, God bless America. (End of letter.)
Anytime the liberal extremists, more concerned about picking up a few seats in the House next November than winning the war on terror, actually want to join the war on terror is fine by me.
No decorated veteran that agrees with President Bush is less "decorated" than a decorated veteran that disagrees with him. That the liberal media has suggested it is so is absoultely disgraceful. That Sen. Kerry enforces the implication is disgusting. Where's the outrage?
The liberal extremists at the Boston Globe will never print this letter. The quote below is very long, but stay with it; I left only the really poignant parts and look how long it is! You can "google" as I suggest for the full text. I think the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is used seven times. Quick, call the Great Equivocator!
Editor,
During an address to the Nation defending his decision authorizing air strikes in Iraq on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said (all italics are mine for emphasis), "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . . their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs . . . their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . (UN weapons inspectors) are highly professional experts from dozens of countries . . . their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability . . . other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them; not once, but repeatedly . . . unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war . . . against civilians . . . even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . Saddam's deception has defeated (weapons inspector's) effectiveness . . . this situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere . . . and so we had to act and act now . . . let me explain why . . . first, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past . . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people . . . first, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq . . . the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War . . . the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . may God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America (google "Clinton and December and Iraq" for the full text)."
I do not believe President Clinton "lied", "cherry-picked intelligence", "misled", or "exaggerated" any aspect about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Maybe Sen. Hillary Clinton thinks her husband lied . . . about, Iraq, I mean. Maybe Sen. John F. Kerry thinks President Clinton cherry-picked. Maybe the editorial staff at the Boston Globe thinks President Clinton misled and exaggerated. Or, just maybe, the hate-Bush crowd believes whatever they have to believe in order to justify their hatred. Their manufactured hatred doesn't make us any safer as a Country and it certainly doesn't help our troops in the field. I agree with President Clinton, God bless America. (End of letter.)
Anytime the liberal extremists, more concerned about picking up a few seats in the House next November than winning the war on terror, actually want to join the war on terror is fine by me.
No decorated veteran that agrees with President Bush is less "decorated" than a decorated veteran that disagrees with him. That the liberal media has suggested it is so is absoultely disgraceful. That Sen. Kerry enforces the implication is disgusting. Where's the outrage?
posted by Zack at 6:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home