what “took them so long”?

Defector01 on November 27, 2006 at 5:30 PM

Ah yes, Laur and his company shill, McCaffrery . . . I’m sure both of their viewers will find this very convincing.

rplat on November 27, 2006 at 5:36 PM

Oh, I wish I was in the land of car bombs
Old times there are not forgotten
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dhimmi Land

The Ugly American on November 27, 2006 at 5:52 PM

And the activist media strikes again. A third rate Walter Cronkite wannabe trying to pull the “we’ve lost” card out of his hat in order to make a name for himself. Dolt. These folks need to consult a dictionary and look up the term “civil war” before throwing it around willy nilly. What exists is a form of anarchy, all against all, not a civil war of two organized and opposing forces. But civil war sounds so much sexier and if there is a civil war, than this useless, imoral, and illegal war must really be a failure, right? Right? Hello?

What a tool.

(I forgot to mention the location of said anarchistic scenario: mostly Baghdad, in front of the television cameras. ‘Nuff said.)

Militant Bibliophile on November 27, 2006 at 5:57 PM

I believe Michael Yon considered it a civil war quite some time ago; if nothing else, his point about recognising the small fire before it turns into a big fire was perhaps something more people should have paid attention to. But yes, ultimately, semantics won’t be changing much on the ground any time soon; although perhaps it will allow even slightly more flexibility for the military to do it’s job..

Reaps on November 27, 2006 at 6:18 PM

A civil war? WTF? If memory serves me correctly, a civil war involves two or more factions of a government battling for control over a country or territory. In other words, you had to be a part of the government at some point in order to fight in a civil war. Is that what’s happened in Iraq? Not to my knowledge. As far as I can tell, you’ve got non-governmental militias (essentially, street gangs) engaging in religious violence. You’ve also got Johnny Jihad and his goons, also not a part of the government, throwing gas on the fire. Sorry, not a civil war. It’s anarchic violence, like someone here already mentioned.

I hate NBC news. I hate all of the network news shows. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again–something has to happen to rein these folks in. They wield considerable power and they’re accountable to no one, which is antithetical to our form of government. I’m holding them directly responsible when the next terrorist attack kills American civilians.

jaleach on November 27, 2006 at 6:53 PM

You’re all right, it’s not a civil war. It’s a tribal war, taking place inside an artificially-drawn nation.

Alex K on November 27, 2006 at 6:57 PM

It was a quagmire three days in. Why not a civil war now?

Anything. For. Ratings.

JammieWearingFool on November 27, 2006 at 7:10 PM

So I’m to believe these people know the difference between a civil war and their backsides? I think not.

…a rose by any other name…blah, blah, blah.

I grow tired of this “coverage.”

looking4statesmen on November 27, 2006 at 7:58 PM

Al-Reuters and MSNBC gang up to crow about their agenda in the lead:

WASHINGTON - NBC News Monday branded the Iraq conflict a civil war — a decision that put it at odds with the White House and that analysts said would increase public disillusionment with the U.S. troop presence there.

laelaps on November 27, 2006 at 9:43 PM

Unfortunately, this is serious. These turds are determined to change the course of American and world history. Their Holy Grail is Watergate, when the media chased a president out of office and ended a war. They also brought about a Demo landslide in the 1974 mid-term elections–with many of the unexpectedly victorious Demos being fringe nut-jobs who the party thought would never actually gain political office ( and it took two decades to get rid of them )

For the current crop of idiot-clowns in the media, they want to be like their daddies & mommies: they want to dring down a sitting president ( or at least make sure he is replaced by a Demo in 08 ) and end a war. This is their primary agenda, and nearly everything they say and do is in furtherance of this goal. They will lie, distort, exaggerate, omit, abort, and just make sh*t up

What makes this SERIOUS is that poll after poll shows that most people still get most or all of their non-local news ( their news about national and international affairs ) from television news. These people gave us Jimmy Carter, Ross Perot, Bill Clinton, and the Demo majority about to overrun Congress.

okay, enough, most of you already know this, but I wanted to spell it out just one more time. I’m trolling for the occasional convert and Awakened One here and there.

What to do about this? Good question……

Janos Hunyadi on November 27, 2006 at 10:19 PM

Oh, the war was turned into politics, all right… it was Republicans riding a wave of fear to a narrow victory in 2004. They didn’t stop to consider that politicizing the war is a sword that can cut both ways.

Constantine on November 27, 2006 at 11:49 PM

Uh, the Dems were politicizing it LOOOONG before any “wave of fear”.

RightWinged on November 27, 2006 at 11:53 PM

Janos,

Your comments should be hammered into stone for all to see, for all eternity.

By the way, I saw an interesting tidbit over at http://www.imdb.com today:

CNN Anchor Calls Iraq “A Mess”

CNN correspondent John Roberts, who recently returned from Iraq, says that U.S. television has been unable to convey the extent of the chaos that currently wracks that country. “The place is a mess. It’s an absolute mess,” Roberts told The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz on CNN’s Reliable Sources. “There is nowhere you can go in the Baghdad area as a Western journalist without an escort, where you could feel safe from being kidnapped, shot at, whatever. The amount of death that’s on the streets of Baghdad for U.S. forces and for the Iraqi people is at an astronomical level.” Roberts said that he saw the results of an attack on a Humvee in which the U.S. soldier seated in the passenger seat was “disintegrated” by the projectile. He said he watched the driver die on the roadside. None of that could be shown on television, Roberts observed. “The pictures on television are sanitized compared to what they are on the ground. … It’s too raw for television. It’s too personal for the families who were involved, because the fellow who I saw on the ground, Howie, he was ripped apart. And that’s just not the sort of thing that you want a family to know.”

Notice how the “whole country” is in turmoil, yet Jimmy Olsen, aka CNN correspondent John Roberts, never describes anything outside of Baghdad. So Baghdad is the entire country of Iraq? Sort of like Manhattan is the sum total of America, I guess. These folks are delusional; they drag wear their blinders and live in their bubble everywhere they go. And to think I thought they were so sophisticated *snorts*.

jaleach on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 AM

Thanks, jaleach, I hope the ’stone’ isn’t in or near a cemetary. Notice how the Troll Constantine popped up to squeak out the Usual Garbage before crawling back under his rock.

In Europe, no one believes that any newspaper is ‘neutral’ or unbiased, because all major national papers are openly linked to either a party or a political movement. You know what you’re getting, and the reporters often try to develop fact-based stories from a particular–and expected–perspective, without claiming to be neutral. American newspapers have become a joke, stuffed with adverts and re-writes from the AP and al-Reuters, and Hard Left editorially

So Americans turn to TV for national and international news, were Fox is outnumbered four to one ( PMSNBC doesn’t count )

Janos Hunyadi on November 28, 2006 at 1:51 AM

Constantine, the troll, is back telling his lies again.

Don’t feed him and he’ll go back to playing with himself at his own blog.

georgej on November 28, 2006 at 5:53 AM

Now that the leaders at MSNBC have declared this a civil war, they lead every Iraq story with “the President still refuses to call the events in Iraq a Civil war”. I feel an agenda coming on.

Gwillie on November 28, 2006 at 12:31 PM

I remember when the Dems were talking about how we needed to remove Saddam from power because he was such a threat. I also remember most Dems voting for the War and supporting it. Lastly, and sadly (but not surprisingly), come the 2004 elections and the Dems were talking about how they were misled - that it was all a lie

I remember that, too… they were saying Saddam needed to go since the late 90’s, yet none of them advocated an invasion and occupation (wisely, as it turns out). Democrats voted for use of force based on Bush administration allegations that there were WMD’s, an active nuclear weapons program, mobile chemical weapons labs, and links to AQ… all which turned out to be false. Silly Democrats, feeling misled, not realizing that the real goal was freedom and democracy for Iraq, not all that other stuff about a gathering/imminent threat.

Constantine on November 28, 2006 at 4:15 PM

Clinton made the case, signed made regime change our policy in 1998, and a month later made a speech that sounds virtually identical (if not stronger) than Bush’s state of the union speech before ATTACKING IRAQ.

The substance of Clinton’s policy for regime change was support for opposition groups within Iraq, not invasion or occupation.

Remember what Bush Sr. said about occupying Iraq? Of course you don’t:
“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.”
- George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998)

Prophetic, wouldn’t you say?

Constantine on November 28, 2006 at 6:43 PM

Rest assured Constantine, that I put a big ass nail in your coffin here, but as usual, my comment won’t show up for some reason.

RightWinged on November 28, 2006 at 9:52 PM

Ah, there’s my comment. Thanks fellas.

RightWinged on November 29, 2006 at 1:40 AM

Do you really need me to give you the Democrat WMD quotes? Really!?

Yes, find me 13 years of quotes from Democrats saying we should invade and occupy Iraq. Take your time.

You can’t pretend the war would have been justified if the WMDs were there by using lack of WMDS as your argument against it, and then change your reason to oppose it because you lose your first one. You liberals are the most shameful POSs, I can’t believe you worthless excuses for human beings are allowed to cast votes that cancel ours out.

How unsurprising that you misunderstand the argument. The war was a stupid idea whether there were WMDs or not because of
1. The tremendous nightmare of occupying another country (hence the fact that neither Clinton nor Bush Sr. chose such action);
2. The already ongoing war in Afghanistan which required our full support;
3. The fact that Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 OR A TERRORIST THREAT TO THE U.S. This is where the BushCo. lies about the reasons to invade come in: they had to use fear to sell the war because they knew the American public would never support an invasion based on vague ideas about establishing freedom and democracy in the mideast.

Your abusive tone belies the weakness of your circular argument. Do you ever get tired of chasing your tail?

Constantine on November 29, 2006 at 8:49 PM

(my bad on the quotes.. you know which words were yours)

RightWinged on November 29, 2006 at 9:27 PM

You want to accuse me of going in circles you dishonest POS?! You people are infuriating. No point in wasting my time other than to say:

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. … Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

2002

Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)

Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

2000

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said WMD Destabilize World. “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8322)

1998

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Used WMD And Has Intent “To Continue To Do So.” “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. 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.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said We Must Make Clear We Cannot Allow Saddam To Use WMD. “[I]t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous. … But we cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated … that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Decision Must Be Made Concerning Iraq’s WMD. “We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Has Used Hesitancy Of Other Countries To Hold Him Accountable To Influence International Community. “Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq’s call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. … These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. … France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Defended President Clinton’s Decision To Bomb Iraq. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the ‘legitimacy’ of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. ‘I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.’” (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)

1997

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production. “[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam. “Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Warned Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice.If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD. “In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

1991

Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record,1/12/91,p. S369)

1990

Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)

December 16, 1998
Web posted at: 8:51 p.m. EST (0151 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.

“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

‘Without delay, diplomacy or warning’

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

“Along with Prime Minister (Tony) 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,” Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

“Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors,” Clinton said.

“In halting our airstrikes 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,” the president explained.

Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

“If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,” said Clinton. “He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction.”

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
Offensive Strike

•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links

“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,” Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

“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,” he said.

“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.”

RightWinged on November 30, 2006 at 7:23 AM