On This Date 5 Years Ago....

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.


•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links


"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," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
Lander et al,

Please explain how, under the logic you have used to attack President Bush, President Clinton was not "lying to the American people" and launching "unjust" attacks.

This ought to be good.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Floyd,
It will be very good and very simple.
To my understanding Clinton ordered strikes on VERY specific Iraqi military targets.

Bush created a war that has killed an estimated 9000+ innocent civilians, amongst countless other casualties.

Then again Bush also set the state record for most executions, so murder is nothing new to him.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Floyd,
I think you're missing the point here. I don't blindly worship Clinton as you suggest and much-like many of your "peers" do towards Bush. I thought he was a fair and effective leader, but his constant adultery was a fuking embarrassment to all of America. You'd be surprised, but I'm actually quite conservative in some regards.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Now I personally believe that Clinton was about the same degree of fvcktard as Bush is, even if he wasn't an actual traitor to the principles upon which the country was founded like Bush.

But one cannot help but wonder if the dickheads pulling this out of the hope chest and demanding to know why "libs" didn't accuse Clinton of "lying to the American people" in this matter have seriously forgotten that back when these strikes were launched, the Republicans were almost universally discounting them as a diversion tactic from his domestic mess (for those who do not recall, President Clinton's impeachment proceedings were held on 19 December 2003, just three days after the attacks on Iraq.)

chainsaw.gif


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Floyd,
It will be very good and very simple.
To my understanding Clinton ordered strikes on VERY specific Iraqi military targets.

Bush created a war that has killed an estimated 9000+ innocent civilians, amongst countless other casualties.

Then again Bush also set the state record for most executions, so murder is nothing new to him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Bush still has a ways to go to reach those impressive death totals.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2000
Messages
15,635
Tokens
Way to hit it out of the park,Grand Slam!

My only bitch is where the hell were you guys when I was battling these pacifist marxist for the last month??...I ought to sue for non support!..lol
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
126
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
the Republicans were almost universally discounting them as a diversion tactic from his domestic mess (for those who do not recall, President Clinton's impeachment proceedings were held on 19 December 2003, just three days after the attacks on Iraq.)
Phaedrus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phaedrus, most Republicans were asking for action to be taken against Iraq for a long time before the bombing. They, with some exceptions, were supportive of the action. From CNN's website:

"Speaking first, outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) told his colleagues the administration had consulted with him on the plans for the military strike against Iraq and he supported the U.S. action.

Never specifically mentioning the impeachment proceedings, Gingrich stressed the need for America to lead, despite any internal conflicts facing the nation.

"We have a chance today to say to the world, no matter what our constitutional process, whether it is an election eve or it is the eve of a constitutional vote, no matter what our debates at home, we are as a nation prepared to lead the world," Gingrich said.



Of course, when Democrats began demanding that the impeachment trial be postponed indefinitely, some on the right began questioning the timing.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Grand Slam

Newt Gingrich is hardly exemplary of "most Republicans." However, I was not speaking so much of Republican politicians as Republican Internet forum posters, media pundits, etc.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
818
Tokens
Go back even further and you will find Republicans like Tom De Lay and a boatload of Republicans whining that Bosnia would become another quagmire like VietNam and that the United States should not be engaged in nation-building (which Bush echoed in this campaign).

Gotta admit Republicans can switch sides on a dime - wish my car handled that good. On the other hand, you gotta hand it to 'em for loyalty, they'll blindly and mindlessly follow their leader off a cliff if they have to.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,146
Tokens
Look boys, why do you just admit th fact that despite what he does, you just hate Preisdent Bush.

If he cured cancer you would bitch and moan that he put thousands of health care workers out of a job.

Just admit it's personal and move on. Don't try to rationalize so much.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Maybe I'm in the unique position of having contempt for any American president over the past twenty years.

Clinton, if I recall correctly, was being hounded about his BJs in the Oval Office (another issue altogether, but if I worked in the White House, I can assure you I'd have plenty of Cabana boys floating around ..) and the attacks on Iraq were in an effort to distract the media and the American public. From a purely strategic standpoint, it was garbage. On the evil scale, it ranks at about an 8.5 ...

Bush, on the other hand, has scared the living crap out of his citizens, implemented the National Security Strategy (there's a doozie of a read, if you ever have the time or inclination,) ignored the greatest anti-war movement in the history of mankind, and blasted the crap out of a more-or-less defenseless nation. On the evil scale, it ranks about a 9.7 ...
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Floyd Gondolli:
Lander et al,

Please explain how, under the logic you have used to attack President Bush, President Clinton was not "lying to the American people" and launching "unjust" attacks.

This ought to be good.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude, 1998<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Clinton lied to the American people plenty of times.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
Phaedrus,

You keep mentioning "traitor to the principles upon which this country was founded". What specifically could Bush do to make a bad situation better? Not flaming, just curious.

xpanda,

I have a good feeling why you hate junior. But why do you hate his daddy, Clinton, and Reagan? Is there currently any leader you admire?
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Floyd,
I don't dislike Bush because he is republican. I dislike hime because he is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent people.

Your analogy is ludacris. Would you forgive Charles Manson for his crimes and hail him as a "good man" if he cured cancer?

No, of fuking course not. What's done is done - I just pray that someday this raving lunatic Bush will be held accountable.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Uncle Moneybags:

The US officially spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined. In my opinion, this fact alone makes it the world's responsibility to keep a watchful eye on Washington, regardless of who is at the helm. Never in the history of mankind has there been a military even close to being as large and as powerful as this one ... and it seems that with every term in office, the President-elect makes it even stonger, while simultaneously weakening others.

If, in your next election, you elect someone with the 'nads to disseminate the National Security Strategy, I will personally head to Washington and give the guy a Lewinski on your behalf. And I'm dead serious.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
735
Tokens
xpanda,

I don't know how much this country spends on "defense", but when you have "countries" like Nauru or Fiji entered into the world equation it isn't hard to spend more than they do.

On your other points I must disagree. The People's Republic of China has a standing army quite larger than ours and a reserve army that represents about 80% of our (U.S.) entire population.

Going through history and accounting for technological improvements, I personally think Alexander the Great had the most powerful military just because he virtually shredded just about everyone he happened to face and at terrible odds I might add. I don't necessarily think that the United States is powerful, I just think that the rest of the world is that inept.

I guess it's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it.
icon_wink.gif
IMO
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I found an article about a year ago that listed each of the world's countries and their defense expenditures (not limited to their militaries, by the way ... lots of things fall under this umbrella) and, at that time, the US did indeed spend more than the rest of the world combined, including China. I will try to find it again later tonight. I can't say for sure how the numbers of military personnel compare .. (remember, tho, I said large 'and' powerful ... it would hard to counter that the US is the most dominant force in the world.)

As for the rest of the world being inept, that's one way to look at it, I guess. I'd prefer to state that those countries simply have better things to spend their money on.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
The Iraqi sanctions and Saddam killed a lot of people, say for arguments sake, with the help of Saddams 2 tier system, 500,000
(ie feed your mates, starve and shoot your rivals and anyone you don't like.)

The sanctions were a collective decision by the international community, working together, and were a collective responsibility, whatever happened.


George on the other hand made himself emperor of the world, and decided unilaterally to invade Iraq, turning it into a breeding ground for islamic extremists/terrorists and supporters.

The world will be a safer place, once the buckeroo has left the White House.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,178
Messages
13,564,985
Members
100,754
Latest member
itsdbarone
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com