Post by Sanders KaufmanA long-standing tradition for presidents who leave office is to create
a "presidential library"; a trove of material memorializing the events
of his presidency. It contains documents and artifacts that for
people to come look at, study, and refelct upon.
But liberals doesn't want that. They doesn't want people to remember
the crimes his impeached liberal democrat predecessor committed,
George W. Bush was stuck with cleaning up Bill Clinton's carefully
orchestrated mess when he left office.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.htm
l
Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and
security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission
is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and
its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States,
and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around
the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world
with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of
my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now;
and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate
with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They 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.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of
the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a
condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. 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. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing
Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran.
And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people,
gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt
today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons
again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has
sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On
occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed
down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built
intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military
force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn
Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear
responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was
only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to
the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision
to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the
air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the
right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to
prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant,
based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along
with Prime Minister 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.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out
their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this
weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the
results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to
cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the
inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example,
it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it
will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions
make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.
For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related
to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site
and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering
UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the
building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the
equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the
inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-
related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct
ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by
Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not
able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with
respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq,
their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the
inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the
Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international
community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the
weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
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 crippled 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.
Third, in halting our air strikes 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. We will not only have
allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons
of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear
of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
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, and to degrade his ability to threaten his
neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you
act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the
judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most
surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report,
we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect
his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to
initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to
the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab
countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a
month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain,
concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into
cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN
Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not,
and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
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 or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
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.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the
international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions.
Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would
have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq
to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for
the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the
oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat
to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the
well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the
world.
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.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in
harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should
have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will
respond forcefully.
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. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will
deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these
dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. 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.
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.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference
between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll
have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the
past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. 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.