posted on July 16, 2003 03:52:06 PM new"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," the President said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
The president said he and his national security advisers agreed that Hussein presented a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. He said he deemed military action necessary to prove the international community, led by the United States, had not lost its will. Failure to act, the President said, would have "fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."
"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors," the President said. "Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now."
posted on July 16, 2003 04:07:44 PM newU.S. Strikes Aimed at Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton ordered a "strong and sustained" air attack on Iraq Dec. 16 in response to continued Iraqi attempts to build weapons of mass destruction.
Tomahawk cruise missiles streaked toward Baghdad at 5 p.m. EST to start Operation Desert Fox. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said U.S. goals are to "degrade" Iraq's military capability, to stop Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighbors, to strike at facilities engaged in making weapons of mass destruction and to deprive Hussein of the means of delivering those weapons.
British airmen also joined in the strikes.
Cohen said he had ordered an air expeditionary wing and more ground troops to the Persian Gulf region as a precaution.
Pentagon officials said the deployment order has been signed and about 90 Air Force and Marine Corps aircraft will soon be operating in the region. Deploying Army units include a brigade from Fort Stewart, Ga.; Army Patriot missile batteries from Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Bragg, N.C.; and a light infantry battalion from Fort Drum, N.Y.
The new U.S. forces will join 24,100 other service members already stationed in the region. There are 201 U.S. aircraft in the area, including 15 B-52H bombers based at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean. The aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and its battle group are scheduled to arrive in the Gulf Dec. 18.
Pentagon officials said eight Navy ships started the strikes by launching Tomahawk missiles. Army Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said strikes will be flown by the U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force pilots flying from bases in the area and naval aviators from the USS Enterprise.
Cohen said the president agreed with advisers: "We wanted to strike quickly with no more warning, no more carrots for Saddam
and no chance to prepare for the attacks."
The attacks followed a Dec. 15 report by chief U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler that said Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions had worsened since the U.N.-Iraqi confrontation in November. U.S. planes had been in the air to strike Iraq Nov. 14
when Saddam agreed to abide completely by U.N. resolutions.
Shelton said planning for another U.S. attack started Nov. 15. "We assumed a worst-case scenario [about compliance]," he said.
He said the timing of the attack had to wait on Butler's report.
"Frankly, we thought the report would be mixed," Cohen said. "But in all five areas covered, Iraq had gotten worse."
Cohen and Shelton were not specific about the attack. Shelton said strikes generally would hit transport, air defense sites, and command and control facilities. "We're going after everything [involved with weapons of mass destruction] from transport to manufacturing to delivery," Shelton said.
He said U.S. forces will do all they can to avoid civilian casualties, but said there will be some.
Pentagon officials estimate the Iraqis have 430,000 active duty troops and 650,000 in reserve. About 17,000 Iraqi soldiers are involved with air defense and the Iraqi air force still has about 310 planes.
posted on July 16, 2003 04:15:04 PM new
Ebayauctionguy,
That was the case in 1998 as determined by the Clinton administration.
There is no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to his neighbors or to the United States in 2003, five years later after the Gulf War.
posted on July 16, 2003 04:49:08 PM new
Ok, if this whole thing is not about the oil or, in part about the oil. . .walk away from it. Don't touch it, do not import it into the U.S. Don't allow anyone anywhere with connections to the U.S. have anything to do with it. No one. Period. Only Iraq. Then when that happens and I am the last living person on the planet, I still won't believe Bush didn't lie.
posted on July 16, 2003 05:07:47 PM new
Clinton did what policy deemed necessary at that time. That has nothing to do with the situation today. Iraq was essentially neutralized before we attacked. You are aware of this and offer the past as a feeble attempt to justify our countries present policies which are despicable. Germany committed crimes against humanity 60 years ago, would that justify bombing them tomorrow afternoon?
posted on July 16, 2003 05:27:58 PM new
It cracks me up how the left believes that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction only a few years ago when Clinton attacked Iraq and then they accuse Bush of lying about WOMD's.
I think they have a word for that: hypocrisy
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Jul 16, 2003 05:28 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2003 05:35:07 PM new
So, where are these WOMD that could be used to attack in 15 minutes? Clinton obviously found and diminished Saddam's WOMD making capabilities. What has Bush found? What has he destroyed besides thousands of lives here and abroad? There's a BIG difference between Clinton's four night (Our forces attacked about 100 targets over four nights. .) and Bush's years. IMO he's both a liar and a killer. I'll take Clinton's lies over Bush's anyday.
I still find it rather ironic that all of this. . .all the death, destruction and monetary ruin. . .has been caused by the actions of one man who is still alive and well and planning who knows what. One man that should have been "taken out" long ago. When did it become okay in the eyes of the world to kill thousands of people to get to one man? Why was it never okay to just target that one man? Alright, I'll use the word. "Assassination" To target one man and to kill him is assassination. How is that more wrong than killing thousands? And he's still running around free. There will always be a country willing to hid him. There will always be people willing to follow him. While you are all feeling so smug about our bombing the he** out of Iraq and taking out his soldiers and his palaces and, and, and . . . he's getting the last laugh because he is still alive and breathing and far from poor.
So, before you continue to sing Bush's praises, think hard about what it is he's done. He has NOT destroyed Saddam Hussein - he's still alive and well and God knows where. He has, however, destroyed thousands of innocent lives. Is it not better to know where your enemy is?
posted on July 16, 2003 05:38:51 PM new
Ebayauctionguy,
No, it's not hypocrisy.
First, your facts are wrong.
In December 1998, the U.S. and UN abruptly pulled the inspection teams out of Iraq after Iraq was accused of not "fully cooperating." Immediately, the Pentagon began a four-day terror bombing campaign of Iraq between December 16 and 19. More than 1,000 bombs and missiles crashed into the country during Operation Desert Fox, the Pentagon code name for those four days. Hundreds of people were killed. It was then that Iraq announced that it would not allow the UN weapons inspection team to return.
Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, U.S. and British war planes have regularly bombed Iraq. In fact, the bombing takes place several times a week. More than 20,000 bombs and missiles have landed on Iraq since December 1998.
As Davebraun said, the situation was essentially neutralized.
posted on July 16, 2003 05:45:20 PM new"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
-Bill Clinton (1998)
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Jul 16, 2003 05:46 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2003 06:12:47 PM new
Is this correct: You people believe that Iraq had WOMD's in 1998. Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days and "neutralized" all of the WOMD's (like he did Osama Bin laden). Saddam learned his lesson and then stopped making WOMD's.
posted on July 16, 2003 06:22:15 PM new
EBAG: That you see no substantive difference between this:
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
-Bill Clinton (1998)
and this:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003
Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003
Speaks volumes about your position
I'll give you this, I personally did not agree with Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq. I felt his motives were suspect. Having said that, what does it have to do with the present situation?
___________________________________
What luck for the leaders that men do not think. - Adolph Hitler
posted on July 16, 2003 06:51:11 PM new
Oh and auctiondunce, since you assured us the economy was rebounding the stock market has tanked further, bankruptcies have increased nationally, thousands more have lost their jobs and of course the deficit has increased to a historic high.
posted on July 16, 2003 06:53:57 PM new
Anyone who believes that Iraq was not making WOMD's is a complete fool.
Here's what happened: When Saddam finally realized that Bush was not bluffing, he decided to get rid of the WOMD's because they would not have much effect on our well-protected troops. He had all of the WOMD's buried or dumped into the Euphrates River and then killed the few people who knew where they were buried. Only Saddam knows where the WOMD's are.
Saddam's strategy was to let American leftists like the Vendio Round Table posters do the damage for him and and try to turn public opinion against Bush. Not a bad strategy!
posted on July 16, 2003 06:58:16 PM newHe had all of the WOMD's buried or dumped into the Euphrates River and then killed the few people who knew where they were buried.
Boy, if that's not stretching, I don't know what is. The whole statement is almost laughable. Is that the best you can do?
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jul 16, 2003 06:58 PM ]
posted on July 16, 2003 07:19:28 PM new
ebag;
I personally couldn't care as much as a rat's ass if democrats or republicans are responsible for the killings.
I don't think it makes much of a diff to the dead or their families.
BUT
When Clinton was CEO for bombing Iraq, they had WOMD, because Bush the Father had given them at about 1990 (memory) but didn't admit till 2000.
When Bush the Son was CEO for bombing Iraq, they had X-WOMD.
He knew too well that the shelf life of the biological gasses was up.
It’s not really important to humanity if you have ‘conservative’ or ‘radical’ gov’ (like clinton, hahaha) as long as they don’t kill the rest of the world.
posted on July 16, 2003 07:32:09 PM new
You seem to believe I have a socialist agenda. Nothing could be further from reality. However I do not need to profit from the exploitation of mineral rich less developed countries with minimal military capabilities thereby vulnerable to our neo-imperialistic tendencies.
posted on July 17, 2003 04:33:04 AM new Totalitarian Wackoe
Oh, Cu'on lets be wrogical aboud'it, yu pinko commie dip stick.
Why isn't you people learn'in??????
He said he had evidence about WOMD, coz he didn't know he had none!!!!!!!!!
Commie Pinkoe
Oh!
OK then...sorry if I appeared anti-American by questioning ya'all.
posted on July 17, 2003 10:56:50 AM new
ebayauctionguy...
Where, in that entire statement, did President Clinton STATE that Saddam HAD chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons? And in what SPECIFIC quantities were they stated? And where EXACTLY did he say they were?
All I read is that he must not be allowed to have them.
What a maroon! Couldn't even get a statement that blames Clinton for saying Saddam HAS WOMD'S!!!! The neo-cons are even losing their ability to blame Clinton!!! Their itty-bitty bitter lives are coming to an end.
