Clinton and Bush Got it Right
A couple of days ago, an op-ed piece by Mr. Samuel (Sandy) Berger appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The piece provided guidance to the Bush Administration on dealing with Iran. For those that don't know, Mr. Berger was President Clinton's National Security Advisor from 1997 to 2001, presumably Mr. Berger knows a thing or two about matters of national security. For what could be the third time in just a few months, I'm going to reproduce excerpts from a President Clinton speech from December 1998. I simply will continue to pound home the fact that President Clinton, based on the intelligence he saw and was given by folks like Mr. Berger, thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Also, being the great Kool-Aid consumptor that I am, I do not believe President Clinton timed the military strikes against Iraq to distract the Country's attention from the impending bi-partisan impeachment vote (for the President's unlawful conduct in obstructing a woman's right to pursue sexual harassment charges against him) that occurred about 2 days after the speech was delivered.
Anyway, the letter I submitted to the Wall Street Journal with the speech excerpts (I tried to eliminate as much of the speech as possible but every sentence seemed to mention weapons of mass destruction! . . . Imagine that!):
Editor,
It is absolutely necessary that your readers know that the Mr. Samuel Berger that wrote today's essay, "Talk to Tehran" (A19), offering guidance to the Bush Administration is also the same Mr. Berger that was National Security Advisor for President Clinton in December, 1998 and, therefore, would have signed-off on President Clinton's December, 1998 address from the Oval Office announcing air strikes against Iraq. I include just the most compelling excerpts of that address below; italics and bold are mine for emphasis:
President Clinton said, "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 advisor, 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." (End of letter.)
Yes, may God bless us, Mr. President.
What more needs to be said? What is wrong with the liberal media? Yeah, Saddam Hussein fooled two American administrations. If a thug verbally threatens my family and I had just witnessed the thug using a knife on another family, I'm going to shoot the thug. It will not matter a lick to me if after the thug is shot dead the police arrive and find that the thug had tossed the knife in the woods prior to approaching my family. Do liberal extremists really intend to argue the Democrat families (the US with a Democrat as President) so threatened can shoot such a thug and Republican families (the US with a Republican as President) so threatened cannot?
Saddam Hussein was a thug that threatened the world . . . so said President Clinton. Saddam had every opportunity to show the world (through IAEA inspections) he disposed of his knife (weapons of mass destruction). Instead, he acted as though he still had his knife. There are consequences for such actions as Presidents Clinton and Bush demonstrated.
A couple of days ago, an op-ed piece by Mr. Samuel (Sandy) Berger appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The piece provided guidance to the Bush Administration on dealing with Iran. For those that don't know, Mr. Berger was President Clinton's National Security Advisor from 1997 to 2001, presumably Mr. Berger knows a thing or two about matters of national security. For what could be the third time in just a few months, I'm going to reproduce excerpts from a President Clinton speech from December 1998. I simply will continue to pound home the fact that President Clinton, based on the intelligence he saw and was given by folks like Mr. Berger, thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Also, being the great Kool-Aid consumptor that I am, I do not believe President Clinton timed the military strikes against Iraq to distract the Country's attention from the impending bi-partisan impeachment vote (for the President's unlawful conduct in obstructing a woman's right to pursue sexual harassment charges against him) that occurred about 2 days after the speech was delivered.
Anyway, the letter I submitted to the Wall Street Journal with the speech excerpts (I tried to eliminate as much of the speech as possible but every sentence seemed to mention weapons of mass destruction! . . . Imagine that!):
Editor,
It is absolutely necessary that your readers know that the Mr. Samuel Berger that wrote today's essay, "Talk to Tehran" (A19), offering guidance to the Bush Administration is also the same Mr. Berger that was National Security Advisor for President Clinton in December, 1998 and, therefore, would have signed-off on President Clinton's December, 1998 address from the Oval Office announcing air strikes against Iraq. I include just the most compelling excerpts of that address below; italics and bold are mine for emphasis:
President Clinton said, "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 advisor, 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." (End of letter.)
Yes, may God bless us, Mr. President.
What more needs to be said? What is wrong with the liberal media? Yeah, Saddam Hussein fooled two American administrations. If a thug verbally threatens my family and I had just witnessed the thug using a knife on another family, I'm going to shoot the thug. It will not matter a lick to me if after the thug is shot dead the police arrive and find that the thug had tossed the knife in the woods prior to approaching my family. Do liberal extremists really intend to argue the Democrat families (the US with a Democrat as President) so threatened can shoot such a thug and Republican families (the US with a Republican as President) so threatened cannot?
Saddam Hussein was a thug that threatened the world . . . so said President Clinton. Saddam had every opportunity to show the world (through IAEA inspections) he disposed of his knife (weapons of mass destruction). Instead, he acted as though he still had his knife. There are consequences for such actions as Presidents Clinton and Bush demonstrated.
posted by Zack at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home