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.
Speaking of being touched in the head and delusions, it seems you glossed over the fact that regime change in Iraq was made official policy by the Clinton administration.
But don't let niggling little facts like that get in the way of your juvenile Hegelian little game of "Us vs. Them".
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were
1. The Iraqi National Accord,
2. The Iraqi National Congress,
3. The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
4. The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
5. The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
6. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
7. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.
THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990 19
Excerpts From Iraqi Document on Meeting with U.S. Envoy
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.htmlGLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
Speaking of being touched in the head and delusions, it seems you glossed over the fact that regime change in Iraq was made official policy by the Clinton administration.
But don't let niggling little facts like that get in the way of your juvenile Hegelian little game of "Us vs. Them".
Speaking of being touched in the head and delusions, it seems you glossed over the fact that regime change in Iraq was made official policy by the Clinton administration.
But don't let niggling little facts like that get in the way of your juvenile Hegelian little game of "Us vs. Them".
You're an idiot. Bill Clinton received a letter from people in early 1998 urging him to implement a strategy for removing Saddam. Did you see it happen??? What difference does it make that he wanted a regime change??
He didn't make the stupid decision to invade Iraq. Stop trying to twist things around and rewrite history. I am not the one glossing over anything, ass.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The Clinton administration had been spoiling for a hot war with Iraq, back in '98.
So, what else is new?
How 'bout you two schmuckettes read something other than the DNC talking points....M'kay?
The Iraq War Ledger - by Ron Paul
BTW, if lobbing cruise missiles at Baghdad every time you needed to get your zipper off of the NYT front page isn't an act of war, what would be?
You are speaking of Madam Speaker and her backroom boys?UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
The ex-diplomat, who served as Britain's envoy in Iraq after the invasion, said serious preparations for the war had begun in early 2002 and took on an unstoppable momentum.
Notice the significance of this date, boys and girls?
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion - Yahoo! News
This is not the first claim that was made about Bush planning to invade Iraq before he even took over the presidency. But telling that to the current crop of the GOP is a waste of time. These people are touched in the head and believe that Bush was God Almighty.
My fervent hope is that they keep up with their delusions, both good and bad. They are moving steadily to extinction, because they cannot be reached or reasoned with.
Speaking of being touched in the head and delusions, it seems you glossed over the fact that regime change in Iraq was made official policy by the Clinton administration.
But don't let niggling little facts like that get in the way of your juvenile Hegelian little game of "Us vs. Them".
You're an idiot. Bill Clinton received a letter from people in early 1998 urging him to implement a strategy for removing Saddam. Did you see it happen??? What difference does it make that he wanted a regime change??
He didn't make the stupid decision to invade Iraq. Stop trying to twist things around and rewrite history. I am not the one glossing over anything, ass.
Talk about idiots....looks like you obviously do not have all of your shit in one sock....
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Nonsense....The only reason Bubba didn't go storming into Iraq was because that phony made-for-CNN "town hall meeting" --trying to sell a land war in the Balkans-- blew up in Bill Cohen's, Madeline Halfbright's and Bernie Shaw's faces.The Clinton administration had been spoiling for a hot war with Iraq, back in '98.
So, what else is new?
i think NOT....
they would have gone to war if it was necessary, BUT IT WAS NOT necessary...
the clinton admin talked a good talk with no intentions of attacking iraq...
they carried the big stick, but never used it....just as Reagan and other great presidents...imo.
and there is NO intelligence 5 YEARS OLD,(from 1998) that would have been of any value, 5 YEARS LATER (in 2003)Dude....
shoot, intelligence 6 months old is TOO OLD to act on or use in any intelligent manner, again imo.
You are speaking of Madam Speaker and her backroom boys?UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion
Notice the significance of this date, boys and girls?
UK diplomat: US was 'hell bent' on Iraq invasion - Yahoo! News
This is not the first claim that was made about Bush planning to invade Iraq before he even took over the presidency. But telling that to the current crop of the GOP is a waste of time. These people are touched in the head and believe that Bush was God Almighty.
My fervent hope is that they keep up with their delusions, both good and bad. They are moving steadily to extinction, because they cannot be reached or reasoned with.
Nonsense....The only reason Bubba didn't go storming into Iraq was because that phony made-for-CNN "town hall meeting" --trying to sell a land war in the Balkans-- blew up in Bill Cohen's, Madeline Halfbright's and Bernie Shaw's faces.The Clinton administration had been spoiling for a hot war with Iraq, back in '98.
So, what else is new?
i think NOT....
they would have gone to war if it was necessary, BUT IT WAS NOT necessary...
the clinton admin talked a good talk with no intentions of attacking iraq...
they carried the big stick, but never used it....just as Reagan and other great presidents...imo.
and there is NO intelligence 5 YEARS OLD,(from 1998) that would have been of any value, 5 YEARS LATER (in 2003)Dude....
shoot, intelligence 6 months old is TOO OLD to act on or use in any intelligent manner, again imo.
Shrub was and is still an idiot...That doesn't change the fact of the 1998 Iraq resolution that passed out of both houses and was signed by Bubba. Nor does it change the fact that the unilaterally imposed no fly zones over northern and southern Iraq --a defacto act of war itself-- remained in place from 1991 onward.sorry, just bull crap dude....and nothing will change my mind on it.... you are rewriting history to TRY to make bush look like he just followed clinton yahdeedahdeedah, and as said, just bull crap from the right wing...
care
Shrub was and is still an idiot...That doesn't change the fact of the 1998 Iraq resolution that passed out of both houses and was signed by Bubba. Nor does it change the fact that the unilaterally imposed no fly zones over northern and southern Iraq --a defacto act of war itself-- remained in place from 1991 onward.sorry, just bull crap dude....and nothing will change my mind on it.... you are rewriting history to TRY to make bush look like he just followed clinton yahdeedahdeedah, and as said, just bull crap from the right wing...
care
There's more than enough blame to go around.
You're an idiot. Bill Clinton received a letter from people in early 1998 urging him to implement a strategy for removing Saddam. Did you see it happen??? What difference does it make that he wanted a regime change??
He didn't make the stupid decision to invade Iraq. Stop trying to twist things around and rewrite history. I am not the one glossing over anything, ass.
Talk about idiots....looks like you obviously do not have all of your shit in one sock....
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
So what??? He wanted to impose sanctions, ass!!! Invading was entirely Bush's idea.
.
You are speaking of Madam Speaker and her backroom boys?This is not the first claim that was made about Bush planning to invade Iraq before he even took over the presidency. But telling that to the current crop of the GOP is a waste of time. These people are touched in the head and believe that Bush was God Almighty.
My fervent hope is that they keep up with their delusions, both good and bad. They are moving steadily to extinction, because they cannot be reached or reasoned with.
I think I made it clear.
Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:
"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. What it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."
Sir David Manning told the official inquiry into the war that Bush, speaking to Blair by phone on 14 September 2001, "said that he thought there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida."
IMHO - This is all just old news.
Is there anyone alive who still doubts that Bush was hell-bent on pinning 9/11 on Iraq or ginning up any other justification he could for invading Iraq?
Why debate something that is so obvious?
