Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Really...
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq; it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[edit] Precursor to war
President George W. Bush has often referred to the Act and its findings to argue that the Clinton Administration supported regime change in Iraq and further that it believed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Act was cited as a basis of support in the Congressional Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq in October 2002 (Public Law 107243OCT. 16, 2002) [4].
You can't be serious ...
How many lines are you trying to read between to get an advocacy for invading and occupying Iraq with that half-statement in bold text?
You can't be serious Clinton would have done the same thing. The language in the ILA tells you everything you need to know about what he would have done.
You can't be serious ...
How many lines are you trying to read between to get an advocacy for invading and occupying Iraq with that half-statement in bold text?
I did not agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. However, not because there was no justification for doing so. The simple act of continually firing on our planes is justification enough, and you know it.That's nto to mention the WMDs he could not or would not account for, and his continual violations of a ceasefire (not a peace treaty) agreement HE put his John Hancock on.
And for the sole act of costing me 3 days port in Phuket, he should have been hanged, drawn and quartered because he started rattling his sabre on day two in port and we had to load up and rush right off. Hope he's burning in Hell for THAT one.
I'm not arguing that there wasn't justification to invade Iraq ... particularly for firing on our planes, and violation the cease fire ... the WMD not so much but they were a much easier sell than the first two ... WMD scares the public ...
I'm with you in that I didn't agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq ... wrong place, wrong time ...
But as it comes to what Clinton "would have done" ... well ... actions speak louder than words ... and ole Bill was more content to lob missiles in there than anything else ... not saying that was the right thing to do either.
Regime change doesn't necessarily mean invade and occupy.
I'm not arguing that there wasn't justification to invade Iraq ... particularly for firing on our planes, and violation the cease fire ... the WMD not so much but they were a much easier sell than the first two ... WMD scares the public ...
I'm with you in that I didn't agree with Bush's decision to invade Iraq ... wrong place, wrong time ...
But as it comes to what Clinton "would have done" ... well ... actions speak louder than words ... and ole Bill was more content to lob missiles in there than anything else ... not saying that was the right thing to do either.
Regime change doesn't necessarily mean invade and occupy.
participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with high confidence was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. 1
But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clintons National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clintons Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained absolutely convinced of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Who Is Lying About Iraq? - Democrat Quotes | Sweetness & Light
participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with high confidence was that
Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. 1
But the consensus on which Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clintons National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Clintons Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained absolutely convinced of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Who Is Lying About Iraq? - Democrat Quotes | Sweetness & Light
Again ... so?
You are forming your own theoretical narrative on what Clinton "would have done" based on how you interpret statements and events from the 90's ...
They were wrong about the extent of the WMD program ... the 2002 NIE turned out to be an inaccurate estimate ...
Harsh words and some lobbed missiles are all that came out of the Clinton Administration ...
If you are trying to prove something ... you've failed ...
It isn't written in stone, I will give you that. But Clinton also didn't have to endure 9/11, I think it was pretty clear from the language used he would have done the same thing as Bush.
"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Clinton in 2003 while delivering commencement remarks at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Miss.
Clinton might have done the same thing after 9/11 ... might have ... but based on his record on dealing with terrorism prior to 9/11 I have my doubts ...
To put your quote in context one must note the when it was said ... 2 months after we invaded Iraq ... 80-90% of the country was united behind Bush at the time ... Bill Clinton who is a politician to his last cell isn't going to get up there and rail against the invasion or the President at that time ...
Basically the guy will say what he thinks is popular ...
Well, you have to admit at the very least that Bush didn't mislead anyone. The intelligence community had it wrong?
The Bush administration pushed what they knew would sell ... and used the media quite brilliantly to sell it ... and what they were selling wasn't even close to what we bargained for ...
The propaganda machine was in full effect ...
So no, I cannot concede that ...
As far as underestimating the costs of the war, you are right. As far as the danger Saddam posed, it was widely accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. The danger was expressed by both sides leading up to the war.
Congress to 'Review' Charges CIA Prepared Forged Iraq, 9/11 Letter
By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Monday, August 11, 2008
The House Judiciary Committee will review allegations contained in a book published last week by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind that the Bush administration in late 2006 ordered the CIA to prepare a forged letter showing a link between Iraq, al-Qaeda and 9/11 to justify the U.S. invasion and ignored credible intelligence reports that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Suskind reports that the Bush Administration, in its pursuit of war, created and promoted forged documents about Iraq," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers in a statement late Monday. I am particularly troubled that the decision to disseminate this fabricated intelligence is alleged to have come from the highest reaches of the administration. The administrations attempt to challenge Mr. Suskinds reporting appears to have been effectively dismissed by the publication of the authors interview recordings and transcripts. I have instructed my staff to conduct a careful review of Mr. Suskinds allegations and the role played by senior administration officials in this matter.
Conyers said his committee would also review other claims included in Suskinds book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism, such as:
*The origin of the allegedly forged document that formed the basis for Bushs 2003 State of the Union assertion that Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from Niger;
* The role of this document in creating the false impression that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had a working relationship with Iraq;
* The relationship between this document and other reported examples of the Bush Administration considering other deceptive schemes to justify or provoke war with Iraq, such as the reported consideration of painting a U.S. aircraft with UN colors in order to provoke Iraq into military confrontation;
* Allegations that the Bush Administration deliberately ignored information from Iraqs chief intelligence officer that Iraq possessed no WMDs;
* The payment of $5 million to Iraqs chief intelligence officer and his secret settlement in Jordan, beyond the reach of investigators;
* The September 2007 detainment and interrogation of Mr. Suskinds research assistant, Greg Jackson, by federal agents in Manhattan. Jacksons notes were also confiscated.
In the acknowledgements to his book, Suskind said Jackson, his research assistant, was detained by federal agents and his notes confiscated but does not provide further detail about the episode.
The allegation that the administration ordered the CIA to prepare a forged letter is significant, according to Suskind, because it may constitute an impeachable offense.
The CIA is prohibited from conducting cover operations intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.
It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time, Suskind writes in his book. It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White Houses knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.
Book Supports Impeachment Articles
The allegations in Suskind's book support charges leveled against President George W. Bush by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, who introduced articles of impeachment against the president in June for deceiving Congress into believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in order to get lawmakers to back a U.S.-led invasion of the country.
The articles of impeachment were introduced a few days after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a long-awaited report on prewar Iraq intelligence that concluded Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney knowingly misled the public and Congress about Iraq's links to al-Qaeda and the threat the country posed to the United States.
Congress to 'Review' Charges CIA Prepared Forged Iraq, 9/11 Letter
This shit is going no where. Clinton and a majority of democrats were calling for the same action....
The Democrats will have a big majority in Congress next year. Look for some of your buddies to end up in prison.
Both sides did express the dangers Saddam posed ... not everyone agreed that military force was the answer ... the AUMF won big but it was far from unanimous.
