As you may or may not know Bill Clintler is now on the record against going into Iraq...along with Jimmy Carter.
It seems as though the Democrats are trying to make this all political, as usual I might add.

Read this, decide for yourself:

Democrats for Regime Change
ADVANCE COPY from the September 16, 2002 issue: The president has some surprising allies.
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/16/2002, Volume 008, Issue 01




THE PRESIDENT mulls a strike against Iraq, which he calls an "outlaw nation" in league with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." The talk among world leaders, however, focuses on diplomacy. France, Russia, China, and most Arab nations oppose military action. The Saudis balk at giving us overflight rights. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan prepares a last-ditch attempt to convince Saddam Hussein to abide by the U.N. resolutions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998. Clinton was speaking at the Pentagon, after the Joint Chiefs and other top national security advisers had briefed him on U.S. military readiness. The televised speech followed a month-long build-up of U.S. troops and equipment in the Persian Gulf. And it won applause from leading Democrats on Capitol Hill.

But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.

OF COURSE, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good. We complained. Then we bombed a little. Then we stopped bombing. Later, we stepped up our enforcement of the no-fly zones. A year after the inspectors were banished, the U.N. created a new, toothless inspection regime. The new inspectors inspected nothing. If Saddam Hussein was a major threat in February 1998, when President Clinton prepared this country for war and U.N. inspectors were still inside Iraq, it stands to reason that in the absence of those inspectors monitoring his weapons build-up, Saddam is an even greater threat today.

But not, apparently, if you're Tom Daschle. The Senate majority leader and his fellow congressional Democrats have spent months criticizing the Bush administration for its failure to make the "public case" for military intervention in Iraq. Now that the Bush administration has begun to do so, many of these same Democrats are rushing to erect additional obstacles.

"What has changed in recent months or years" to justify confronting Saddam, Daschle asked last Wednesday after meeting with President Bush. Dick Gephardt wants to know what a democratic Iraq would look like. Dianne Feinstein wants the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled first. Bob Graham says the administration hasn't presented anything new. John Kerry complains about, well, everything.

Matters looked different in 1998, when Democrats were working with a president of their own party. Daschle not only supported military action against Iraq, he campaigned vigorously for a congressional resolution to formalize his support. Other current critics of President Bush--including Kerry, Graham, Patrick Leahy, Christopher Dodd, and Republican Chuck Hagel--co-sponsored the broad 1998 resolution: Congress "urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (Emphasis added.)

Daschle said the 1998 resolution would "send as clear a message as possible that we are going to force, one way or another, diplomatically or militarily, Iraq to comply with international law." And he vigorously defended President Clinton's inclination to use military force in Iraq.

Summing up the Clinton administration's argument, Daschle said, "'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

John Kerry was equally hawkish: "If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights," Kerry said back on February 23, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Considering the views these Democrats expressed four years ago, why the current reluctance to support President Bush?

Who knows? But if the president continues to run into stronger-than-expected resistance from Democrats on Capitol Hill, he can always just recycle the arguments so many Democrats accepted in 1998:

"Just consider the facts," Bill Clinton urged.

"Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave the lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM. In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and chief organizer of Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth."

Clinton was on a roll:

"Now listen to this: What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability--notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And might I say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it. "

More Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century," he argued. "They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

What more needs to be said?

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

Anyone want to take a stab at this?

clinton bombed iraq once, it's not suprising he'll support it again.

Originally posted by Cynic
clinton bombed iraq once, it's not suprising he'll support it again.

YOU MISSEED THE POINT, HE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT NOW.

oh ok.

no need for angry caps ;)

Tehy weren't angry, just caps left on from my last post. I'm experimenting how to answer line by line, learning the hard way since no one will tell me how its done.

Maybe because 'clit'on tried it, and it didn't work. Now maybe we should try something else?

yeah right.

Klinton was never above bombing whoever the hell he felt deserved it that week.
he is criticizing Bush's plans to attack iraq just for the sake of having something toi critisize.

Originally posted by ChaoticThoughts
Maybe because 'clit'on tried it, and it didn't work.

Do you call lobbing a few cruise missiles an honest effort?

Furthermore, what is your response to the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Ladin, no muss, no fuss, on at least 2 or 3 occaisions and he turned it down?


Now maybe we should try something else?

Like what?

"A failure to respond could embolden Saddam to act recklessly, signaling to him that he can, with impunity, develop these weapons of mass destruction or threaten his neighbors... And it would permanently damage the credibility of the United Nations Security Council to act as a force for promoting international peace and security. We continue to hope - indeed, pray - that Saddam will comply, but we must be prepared to act if he does not."


Maddeline Halfbright Veterans Day, Round Table Discussion, 1998


What Appeasers Said Then

September 9, 2002


Who made the following statement suggesting that the United States take unilateral military action against Iraq? Think hard on this one, because you may be surprised to learn the answer:



"The continued rule of Saddam Hussein poses a danger to the stability and security of the region. He has threatened his neighbors, while doing everything possible to acquire weapons of mass destruction, in direct violation of international law, even during the last several years when subject to the most restrictive supervision in the history of international arms control.

"The United States should be prepared to maintain Iraq's military containment unilaterally, should the will of others falter. If and when Saddam's regime crosses clearly drawn lines of appropriate behavior, particularly with regard to its weapons of mass destruction programs, and its threats to other countries, the United States should punish it severely and effectively. For several years the United States has responded to Iraqi provocations with more bluster than action. The precedent of Operation Desert Storm shows the reverse is a better strategy.



"With his behavior incurring military insignificant penalties, Saddam may have concluded he can continue to maneuver with relative impunity to heighten the contradictions in the allied coalition. This cat-and-mouse game should stop. Forceful American action can and should build on multilateral consultation and a sense of purpose and necessity.

It should not be conditioned on allied approval, but neither should the U.S. be perceived as ignoring allies' concerns or taking their support for granted."

Who wrote those statements? Was it George W. Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld? Condoleezza Rice? Tony Blair? No, they were made by today's main appeasers: Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. The words above are taken from an article authored by these principal opponents of President Bush's strategery of regime change in Iraq.

Scowcroft, Brzezinski and Richard Murphy authored this recognition of reality in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, in May-June 1997. Back then, they said, "The United States should be prepared to contain Iraq's military containment unilaterally should the will of others falter." What's changed, I wonder? Nothing, except that Iraq has gotten more dangerous - and they've turned from hawks to ostriches.

Originally posted by Powerboss

Do you call lobbing a few cruise missiles an honest effort?

Do you remember the armies giving up, and the weapons and manufacturing plants being blasted? There hasent been many actions taken by iraq since then.

Furthermore, what is your response to the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Ladin, no muss, no fuss, on at least 2 or 3 occaisions and he turned it down?

First time I heard that. tell me more.


Like what?

I dont have all the solutions to the worlds problems. But I suggest that when representitives from around the world are pleading not to do something, you should not push ahead. I know we are america, and we dont have to listen to anyone.:rolleyes: But maybe we should.

First time I heard that. tell me more.

Enjoy!




Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.



By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.

*

Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.

For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/

Well, it clearly is a political issue, especially given their support of it beforehand.

But I think both sides are equally playing out their political roles to the T. The dove like dems and the hawk like republicans.

Bill-

In the Sudan situation didn't they say they would extradite Bin laden to Saudia Arabia only, and SA did not want a part of it?