First, let me state without reservation or qualification, that having Barack Obama as President is a far superior situation for America than if John McCain, with his full-throated, neo-conservative military and foreign policy ideology, were guiding the ship of state.
That said….not only has Obama followed Bush/Cheney footprints on state secrets, transparency, and, now, indefinite detention……but he's also using the same self-contradicting style of "logic" that Mr. Bush and his lackeys repeatedly used in their numerous dissemblings.
Let's take two statements from Obama's Thursday talk about national security. Full transcript here.
"Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists."
AND…
"…there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."
Our courts are "tough enough" to take on trials of hardened "terrorists", except for those cases which "cannot be prosecuted" because, apparently, they're too tough.
What Obama is trying to do here is have it both ways, politically. In the first statement, the President is backhanding the conservative movement's ridiculous sniping about how dangerous it would be to "release" big bad "terrorists" "into the United States". In the second statement, Obama is backhanding the leftist law-and-order crowd while, simultaneously, offering a sop to the scared right, by saying that American law, as it now stands, is insufficient to deal with some "detainees."
Obama's dissonance is similar to George W. Bush's after he illegally ordered the wholesale vacuuming up of all electronic communications by Americans while telling us "wiretaps required a warrant from a judge." It's maddening.
Obama went on to mention the successful federal trials, convictions and imprisonments of Islamic extremist criminals Ramzi Yousef and Zacarias Moussaoui, saying….
"If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo."
But then goes on to say this….
"But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."
Many criminals, some dangerous, have been released by our judicial system because of various legal violations by law enforcement and/or legal professionals. That's the risk of having a democracy based on the rule of law rather than the rule of men.
But Obama, like Bush before him, want to have it both ways, particularly on this "terrorist" stuff. They want to appeal to the rule of law when convenient, and then appeal to some "extraordinary, everything has changed", circumstances when he wants to rely on his own version of a rule of men.
Finally,…I find this Obama statement breathtakingly identical to something the last administration would say in defense of their lawless plans…..
"But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred."
The United States already has "a legitimate legal framework" from which to either build or throw out criminal cases against suspects. Obama had just referred to that "legitimate legal framework" with praise when he pointed out the already successful convictions of "terrorists", Yousef and Moussaoui.
But, just like Bush and Cheney, Obama wants to do what he wants to do…..wants to have his "legal framework" cake and eat it too.
I'm not sure the nation can successfully navigate yet another dissonant presidency.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Hmmm. I wrote about this very same thing today.
Let's see. Two presidents, one a Republican and one a Democrat, end up having virtually the same policy on how to prosecute and detain terrorists.
There must be something right about the policy then, eh ?
This comes while the Democrat is/was highly critical of the former Republican's policies, even as he duplicates them. Incredible chutzpah, I'd say.
Question – Which President is the hypocritical double-talking partisan spinmeister, the Democrat or the Republican ?
No, there's nothing right about the policy.
To answer your question….we already know that Bush lied with his double talk and his propaganda. Obama is not lying….he just wants to have it both ways. Bush wanted it only his way, and then he lied when asked and stonewalled the rest.
There is a difference.
WOW—and I thought the Rev's only purpose in life was to attack the evil wingnuts on a daily basis. A point for the Rev. Well half a point , your above explaination of the difference is weak.
King, you made the point I was about to make. Well done, as usual.
What did Bush lie about again? I forget.
And what's that even mean, "wants it both ways"?
I was wondering the same thing, larry.
I can't think of a Bush lie about keeping terrorists in Gitmo, or the military commissions, or the detainees he released. He was pretty up front about that stuff. Wasn't exactly a secret.
Bush ordered torture to be carried out on Guantanamo prisoners to produce bogus information connecting Iraq and al-Qaida. He told the American people that detainees had to be kept offshore because they were too dangerous. The real reason was to skirt U.S. law, as Bush did on many other occasions.
Bush/Cheney created an illegal gulag to avoid oversight and U.S. law. They created the totally bogus "enemy combatant" status out of whole rogue regime cloth, denied detainees lawyers or habeas rights in violation of many laws and for which the Supreme Court slapped their asses. They then tortured, illegally, to manufacture the confessions about Iraq/al-Qaida that they wanted. Sold the Congress and the American people with the false confessions and killed 4300 American soldiers and 100,000+ Iraqi civilians….all for no legitimate reason.
Like I said….big difference.
The "both ways" reference is about wanting to please the "centrists", (whoever the hell they are) and the far right, who are all scared little bunnies with diapers on, who don't want any big, bad jihadists in SuperMax prisons on U.S. soil…..while at the same time attempting to please progressives by using U.S. courts for some of the trials.
Trying to satisfy a totally irrational group of propagandized-by-FOX-and-Rush-and-Dick lamebrains is a total waste of time….but Obama is willing to damage the nation further with his "pragmatism."
Most of your charges are unsubstantiated outside the bizarro world of the Rachel Maddow show, Reverend. But even in that bizarro world it seems to me in both scenarios presidents would be rationalizing the 'skirting' of U.S. law in order to placate their political opponents. There's no difference whatsover.
The only place my charges are unsubstantiated is in the dark, empty recesses of wingnut brains.
Bush/Cheney intended to invade Iraq before they took office. That's not a rationalization…that's a fact.
All the illegal actions taken after 9-11 were to carry out that pre-ordained policy of invasion. PNAC and the neo-cons….remember?
Obama is suggesting what I consider to be a skirting of law to try to clean up the f*cking mess the criminal administration before him made.
I cannot understand why a person like you, larry, would defend savage and lawless killers of our own American troops. Seems odd.
Is killing our own American troops now to be excused because killing our own American troops will "keep us safe"? How far will you allow the maniacs to take you in your own simplistic rationalizations?
Anyone who didn't know you would quickly get their bearings after your second and third sentences, Reverend. The rest would just confirm their suspicion that you reside wholly in La La Land.
Poor Rev. He really believes all this stuff. That's the saddest part.
Bush didn't do what he did to try to prevent subsequent terrorist attacks. Oh, no. The Rev knows better. Bush did it all only to invade Iraq, because the Rev heard one person somewhere say that once, so it must be true.
Bush didn't open Gitmo and create the 'enemy combatant' status in an attempt to deal with a new kind of organized international enemy representing no nation state who had repeatedly attacked U.S. interests, culminating in 9/11 in a new kind of war. Oh, no. Bush did it to manufacture false confessions (even though it's commonly known that the KSM and Zubaydah interrogations stopped terrorist attacks.) The Rev knows better because he heard some liberal douchebag say that too.
In Revworld, nothing it what it so obviously is to everyone else. There is no attempt to put anything in context or perspective in Revworld. Oh, no. There's only absolute hatred. There's always some deep, dark GOP conspiracy behind things. That scary ass PNAC, you know. In Revworld, PNAC is really scary. Al Qaeda, on the other hand…..nothing much to worry about there. That's just GOP fearmongering. The politics of fear, you know. Olby said so.
In Revworld, there's also no problem with trying enemy combatants snatched off the battlefield in a U.S. civilian court while the war is stilll going on, even though it's known that the recidivism rate of prisoners released from Gitmo is at least 14%. That's 14% who were released and took up arms against the USA again. In Revworld, that's of no concern whatsoever, because context and perspective do no apply. I guess we should also release Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, because they were mistreated, therefore their cases should be thrown out of court. That's justice in Revworld. Screw those 3,000 Americans they murdered on 9/11. Shoot, let's just let all those Gitmo prisoners go, because in Revworld, America is the evil one, formerly led by the evil emperor Bush. Those poor terrorists are the victims, by golly, held in those "gulags." The poor souls.
Revworld – the weirdest place in America. Complete with fun house mirrors and loony tunes.
Rev -
If you really believe Bush and Cheney told deliberate lies that are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, it follows that you should REALLY BELIEVE Barack Obama's got blood on his hands. The policies remain. Only the rhetoric has changed.
But I don't think you really believe what you write. I think getting this stuff off your chest makes you feel good in some sort of sick, twisted way. I'm really sorry you seem to be so angry and frustrated, but there are better ways to deal with whatever you're going through than to pound this trash out at your computer desk every day.
When wingnuts rally to oppose the truth, they oftentimes get vituperative.
I'll simply restate the facts as we currently know them to be….
"Bush/Cheney created an illegal gulag to avoid oversight and U.S. law. They created the totally bogus "enemy combatant" status out of whole rogue regime cloth, denied detainees lawyers or habeas rights in violation of many laws and for which the Supreme Court slapped their asses. They then tortured, illegally, to manufacture the confessions about Iraq/al-Qaida that they wanted. Sold the Congress and the American people with the false confessions and killed 4300 American soldiers and 100,000+ Iraqi civilians….all for no legitimate reason."
The wingnut position is that everything I mentioned above was lawful, just and righteous. The wingnut position is that everything the detested Cheney and the unpopular Bush did was in the interest of protecting the nation,…..just like when Kiefer protects Americans every week on teevee.
There's no crime, lie or conspiracy….there's no limit to the number of deaths, including our own American soldiers….that wingnuts will not accept to protect their own stubborn egos.
Hide behind the flimsy fig leaves of your own stubborness because voluntary exposure to the truth will simply be too crushing to your self-esteem. Stay vested in lies and falsehoods…..and savagery…..whatever it takes to maintain that "warrior" feeling you love so much.
Like I said, no context and no perspective.
The Rev rejects out of hand the notion that Bush did what he did to fight a war against terrorism. He just rejects it, because he wants to, for some reason. Instead, the Rev posits that Bush went to Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 because………well, good question. If not the obvious reason, Rev, then why ???? Was it because Bush hates Muslims ? Was it because he gets a sick thrill from waterboarding people ? Was it for, lol, free OIL (that we didn't get) ??? Was it to give Halliburton something to do ? Did Cheney buy some beachfront property in Iraq ? Please, share your Revworld freakdom with me.
It's not even that you disagree with Bush that makes you a nutjob, Rev. I disagreed with the Iraq War too (gee, am I risking my wingnut credentials ?) It's that you create all these nefarious scenarios to explain why Bush did what he did. You can't accept the obvious reasons, so you invent other ones.
Mr. King,
You still accept the scenario that Bush thought that he was combatting terrorism by taking troops away from the search for bin Laden and sending them to Iraq?
Why did he tell his biographer in 2000 that, if elected, he would invade Iraq to avenge his "daddy"?
Why were Cheney's fellow PNAC members put into key national security positions?
Why was the first national security meeting about Iraq and not Al Qaeda, whom the outgoing Clinton administration identified as the main threat?
Why did the Bush administration pay convicted swindler Ahmed Chalabi $300,000 per month to maintain his government-in-exile, the Iraqi National Congress while he passed secrets to the Iranians?
Why did Rumsfeld react to 9/11 by instructing his aides to find evidence of Iraq's participation?
If our invasion of Iraq was due to faulty intelligence, why did Bush give CIA Director George Tenet a medal?
We now know that all of the claims by the Bush administration made on the way to war were false, from the crude forgery of the "yellowcake" documents, to the claims by paid informants, to those derived from torture.
Plain and simple, Mr. King. You've been had.
frank,
Yes, fighting terrorism was part of the Bush reasoning for removing Saddam, just as it was part of the Clinton reasoning for removing Saddam.
But you can believe "Bush did it to avenge daddy" if you wish. I can't even believe you seriously expect me to respond to that.
And I'm pretty sure I haven't "been had," because, as I said before, I was against the Iraq War.
King stubbornly clings to "fighting terrorism" in his defense of the Bush/Cheney fraud-up to Iraq (which King was against). King clings to this flimsiest of defenses in spite of all the clear and convincing evidence proving that Bush/Cheney pulled our resources away from "fighting terrorism" to begin a war of choice in a country without "terrorists".
How does that make any sense?
Adding to franks' list…
What was the purpose of the Office of Special Plans? Why DID Cheney out Valerie Plame? Why DID the Bush White House retract "the sixteen words?" How do you explain the Downing Street Memo? Why would Bush want to camoflage a UN plane and fly it over Iraq before we invaded?
Some questions for you Rev.
1). If Saddam Hussein did not have WMD why did he not cooperate with the inspections?
2). How many times did Iraq violate UN Securit Council resolutions and no-fly zones?
3). Did Bush and Cheney plant the "evidence" that the Clinton administration used to determine Iraq was trying to acquire WMD?
4). Why did every other intelligence organization in the world believe Iraq was trying to acquire WMD?
5). Should the US allow the UN to deal with North Korea'a attempt to produce nuclear armed missles?
1) Saddam cooperated with the inspections before we attacked his country. Bush arbitrarily pulled out the inspectors, because he KNEW Saddam had weapons, even though the inspectors never found any. The U.S. act of aggression followed.
2) Since Saddam had no WMD, he wasn't in violation of U.N resolutions. The U.S. military never took a hit from Saddam over the no fly zones. Not one. In the second half of 2002, Bush increased the dropping of bombs along the no fly zone, dropping as many sorties in six months as they had the entire year of 2001. Wonder why he did that. Do you?
3) I have no idea what "evidence" you are talking about. The only statement stating Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear material was later retracted by Schrub. And this particular issue is a distraction. From the first Gulf War forward, many people assumed Saddam had weapons, just because they assumed it. But from George Bush 1 to Clinton, no one was willing to conquer Baghdad and occupy Iraq militarily…….the current quagmire we've been bogged down in for over 6 years was the reason.
4) You overstate the case. The question you should be asking is, if our American intelligence still thought Saddam had weapons, how is it that they were so miserably mistaken? Some people in the know, like Gen. Zinni, did know….but Bush/Cheney wasn't interested because Zinni didn't have the answer they were looking for. Remember "stovepiping"? That was the patriotic cherry picking operation controlled by Cheney and led by Doug Feith out of the Office of Special Plans.
5) China is the country that has the most at stake with a nuclear armed N. Korea. I'm not ignoring Japan and S. Korea when I say that. The U.N should be the first step in a united effort to keep Kim under control. Dear Leader is the worst narcissist in the world, and he doesn't like all the other nuts getting all the attention. That's what this is about. He needs aid for his miserable country and this is how he goes about getting it.
Mr. King,
In 1991, as a result of the first Gulf War, Iraq's military was destroyed. At that time, a program of economic sanctions was implemented. Anything that had a potential military application, such as truck tires, was not allowed to be imported. Oil exports were also controlled to prevent Sadaam from acquiring capital to finance a military rebuilding program. At the same time, we kept Iraq under tight surveillance. Any potential targets were routinely taken out by our Air Force. If that pillar of veracity, Bill Clinton, said that there were WMDs, he did so to defend the sanctions program, which kept Iraq in grinding poverty. But even if you believe Clinton, you have to ask, how Iraq bypassed the sanctions program, how they evaded our surveillance, and if Clinton knew of WMDs, why were they not destroyed.
As to Bush's biographer's allegation, it has been widely reported, and yes I expected you to treat it seriously.
The Rev added some important items to my list. Especially damning are the Downing Street memos. It was a report from the head of British intelligence to Prime Minister Blair following a White House meeting. He reported that the intelligence was being "fixed" to lead us to war.
It is important to remember that prior to the invasion of Iraq, we were hunting the legitimate target, bin Laden. The administration's argument was not just that Iraq had WMDs, but also had strong enough ties to Al Qaeda that they would make those weapons available to bin Laden. Both allegations were absurd. Even if Sadaam had somehow evaded our sanctions and surveillance, as a Sunni who maintained a secular government, he was every bit the enemy of bin Laden as we were.
You claim to have been against the Iraq war. I'll accept your word at that. Good for you. But I fail to see how you can accept Bush's premise that Iraq was such an imminent threat that the hunt for bin Laden was of secondary importance. If Bush had been right, supporting the war would have been the only logical position.
If, after all the disclosures, you can still believe that Bush invaded Iraq to fight terrorism, you have been had.
i can't believe the right wingers do not want to hear anything other than what bush/cheney told them.asking tough,provoking questions is what patriotism is.when their response to said questions is silence,obfuscation of facts,or outright lies,then that borders on treasonous action.
It's all about having to admit being mistaken. Remember how Bush could never answer the question, "Can you tell us about anything you would have done differently, any regrets?" His answer was always ….no. Not even one thing.
Admitting error is an enemy that neo-cons will fight to the death. Admitting error is a sign of weakness to these scared cowards.
"provoking questions", to wingers, is only a sign of being against America and for the "terrorists."
These are strange daze.
Rev says, " Saddam cooperated with the inspections before we attacked his country"
That's what I like about you, Rev. When you can't answer a question, you just lie outright. If Saddam HAD cooperated, there WOULDN"T HAVE BEEN 14 UN RESOLUTIONS AGAINST HIM.
Here's President Clinton in 1998, refuting your every word, Reverend:
"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."
Mr. King,
Two other Clinton quotes: "I feel your pain" and "I did not have sex with that girl".
Obviously the Rev was talking about the Bush administration, the fact that Sadaam was grudgingly allowing the inspectors access to wherever they wanted. Their report at the time was that they hadn't found anything yet but were getting full cooperation and would be able to complete their inspection soon. Bush warned the UN to pull out the inspectors because of the pending invasion. Were it not for Bush's hurry to attack Iraq, we would have had an accurate assessment of Iraq's weaponry, but that would have blown the administration's propaganda out of the water. Bush then repeatedly claimed that Sadaam kicked out the inspectors. Apparently, you believed this lie also. I repeat: you have been had, suckered, bamboozled, conned and exploited.
Saddam wasn't grudgingly allowing the inspectors anything. Saddam NEVER cooperated with the inspectors, and the inspectors were there for over a decade, frank.
Stand that 1998 Clinton speech along side Bush's 2002 speech about Iraq, and you'll find it is almost the same exact speech, because the USA believed the exact same things about Saddam from one administration to the next. Only the liberal spin changed when the prez was named Bush, a Republican. You are attempting to rewrite history.
Mr. King,
According to the BBC, in March 2003, UN inspector Hans Blix reported that Iraq had accelerated its cooperation but his team needed more time to verify Iraq's compliance with disarmament demands. The inspectors were in Iraq from 91 to 98 when Sadaam kicked them out. They returned in November 2002 with Jacques Baute of the IAEA stating, "We have not sensed anything which obstructed us. We were welcomed in a polite and professional manner and we were able to do our job". They only got three months because they were pulled on the eve of our invasion.
This topic is easy for neo-cons to muddy. They point to whichever date during Clinton that Saddam didn't comply with inspectors and avoid completely the IAEA inspections during the months leading up to Bush's act of aggression. frank has it right….again.
The question that corporate media….and neo-cons….will never entertain….is why Bush ordered the inspectors out of Iraq in March of 2003 when they were not being impeded in their work by Saddam's government.
It was never a matter of disarming…..it was regime change without a national threat to the U.S. It was a crime.