 |
| |
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Again, Bush wanted regime change-there was no compromise when it came to regime change-even if Saddam left volutarily, the US military would have hqad to go in. |
You act as if regime change in Iraq was something unique to Bush. Congress had already passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and Clinton had already signed it, years before Bush came into office.
quote:
Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998
White House seeks new congressional resolution on ousting Saddam Hussein
By Steve LaRocque
Washington File United Nations Correspondent
Washington — As members of the 107th Congress prepare to debate what sort of resolution they should provide the Bush administration in its confrontation with the Baghdad regime of Saddam Hussein, it recalls a similar situation in September 1998 when the 105th Congress dealt with Iraq's threat to international order.
In that mid-term election year, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime," according to the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338).
The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."
Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998.
Gilman's bill passed in the House of Representatives on a 360-38 vote October 5, and the Senate approved H.R. 4655 by unanimous consent on October 7.
Clinton signed the bill into law October 31.
In late summer of 1998, Iraq had ceased all cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), after a two-year campaign to thwart the commission's work in Iraq.
According to the Iraq Liberation Act, Iraq was charged with a series of crimes including - invading Iran on September 22, 1980, and using chemical weapons against Iranian troops.
It noted that in February of 1988 Iraq "forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds."
Congress also cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 on March 16 of that year.
"On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat," Congress said.
The Congress pointed to the ceasefire Iraq accepted ceasefire conditions as specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of April 3, 1991 that required Baghdad to "to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement."
Congress also noted the April 1993 assassination attempt on former President George Bush during his visit to Kuwait.
Since March 1996, the Congress said, Iraq "has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Furthermore on August 5, 1998, "Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM," Congress said.
The Iraq Liberation Act cited Public Law 105-235 of August 14, 1998, which had declared the Baghdad regime was "in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations," and urged President Clinton "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations."
The Iraq Liberation Act said once Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the United States "should support Iraq's transition to democracy."
The Act had strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, then controlled by Republicans. Republicans backed the bill by a 202-9 margin with 16 not voting. Democrats lined up behind the bill 157-29, with 20 not voting, and the House's sole Independent voted for H.R. 4655.
The Senate passed the Iraq Liberation Act by unanimous consent, a Senate bill with the same language had been co-sponsored by six Republicans and two Democrats, including Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) and then Senator John Ashcroft (Republican of Missouri), the current Attorney General.
In the House, those backing the bill included House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois), Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (Democrat of Texas) and Representative Constance Morella (Republican of Maryland). |
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ne...xt/0919cngr.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I Am Jeff
|
|
New Jersey
Feb 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Iraqis firing upon American and British warplanes isn't threatening? |
Who cares if Iraq shoots down are manless spy planes.
Just because he shoots at our planes traveling over his countries air space, that does not make him a threat to the U.S. Look I can shoot at a plane above me, that must mean I can strike at a country half-way around the world . . .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I Am Jeff
|
|
New Jersey
Feb 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
Iraq was firing at more than 'manless spy planes'. And I did not make the connection that attacking our planes meant Hussein had the reach for an intercontinental attack. |
Firing at planes does not justify the invasion of a country. It is so absurd to think that because he could fire at planes that it makes him a threat. I would even call Saddam fairly benign threat to the U.S. (to his own people, that is a different story).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Testing the waters. |
This is not testing the waters.
quote:
According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'
...
Vanity Fair quotes a senior American official from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office who says he read the transcript of a telephone call between Blair and Bush a few days later [July 2002].
'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".' |
But thank you for illustrating the title of this thread so perfectly. The truth is staring you in the face, and you resort to all sorts of contosion not to have to see it. You're one of the few Republicans I think have integrity, so I am a little disappointed, to say the least.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
You act as if regime change in Iraq was something unique to Bush. Congress had already passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and Clinton had already signed it, years before Bush came into office.
|
Yes- interestingly enough, Bush in 2000 did state he wanted regime change, but not ONCE did he in the campaign tell the Amercian people we would invade.
And I can bet a pretty penny I think, that 90% of the posters here who backed BUsh would not, in April 2001 have come out and said-you know, we need to invade Iraq and spend hundreds of billions on it. Yes, the congress passed the bill, and Clinto signed it-and then in 199 they both begun planning to enact it-OH wait, they didn't. I really did miss that huge speech by Delay in whcih he urged his fellow congresspeople to get behind Clinton and begin planning the invasion.....OH, wait, IT NEVER HAPPENED.
Before 9/11 Bush would never have had the political capital to even bring up an invasion. Even AFTER 9/11 he got support by counching the war as one against a looming threat, NOT as one of regime change and nation building. Hence all the blather about Saddam avoiding war if he came clean on the WMD's (which would then keep him in power and sort of invalidate the whole 'regime change' notion).
So do feel free to bring this up-becuase in essence, this was a policy passed by a Congress that was more talk than action and a politically wounded rpesident who would not have been able to bring an invasion through that same congress regardless of the law they passed.
And if you have ANY proof otherwise, please bring it forth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But thank you for illustrating the title of this thread so perfectly. The truth is staring you in the face, and you resort to all sorts of contosion not to have to see it. You're one of the few Republicans I think have integrity, so I am a little disappointed, to say the least. |
I agree that he GW had a hard on for IRAQ. That's not the issues here. Saddam was given opportunities to back down. He had been playing on the edge for a decade and could have easily put on a better face of compliance. Even without full compliance, if he had appeared sincere, it would have gone a long way taking away any reasonable excuse that GW could have manipulated. He didn't. He continued to thumb his nose playing it for whatever political gain he could. This allowed GW to satisfy his desires. A lot of americans believe this, which explains why continued unmaskings/changing of the reasons for it haven't created an across the board uproar. I don't thing most GW bashers truely realize just how many people wish we had finished the job a decade ago so really weren't concerned about any rational for the job to be finally finished. As demonstrated, many looked the other way as the reasons proved to not hold water. Those people just winked and were happy that the bastard finally got his. GW did understand and took advantage of it.
To the accusations of lies and such, I'm not impressed. The final decision to attack came well after 9/11 and could have been still been cancelled. (difficult, but I still believe possible) So a desire for and positioning/manipulating for was just that. Yes, it is splitting hairs, and it's just my opinion.
I guess my problems is that the anti-bushies think this is such a big shocking and important revelation that makes GW unqualified to be president. UNqualifying every politician that has ever bent the truth and there wouldn't be more than a handful left. We're talking about politicians for christ's sake. Politicians lying, the world is going to end.
I will admit that 25 years, this probably would have more impact on my thinking. I was more idealistic back then. Now I am more realistic. Old age sucks in terms of that. The sad part is that it doesn't seem as important to as many of those 25 years younger as it did then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
|
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So which goal of the war did you support rah? Becuase if the goal you supported was regime change and creating a democratic Iraq, Saddam by definition had NO chance to back down other than complete surrender of his power and his family's power.
I agree with you that Saddam was an arrogant ***** that helped bring about his own fall-BUT again, IF we begin to change hisotry to say the goal was always regime change, at least for most Americans, then you have to say that war was inveitable, becuase why wopuld Saddam simply leave Iraq after all he built? |
I didn't need one. I'm one of those I described, that think we didn't finish the job in the first place. Saddam was given a reprieve but his ego wouldn't let him abide by the agreements that were signed. (under duress of course  ) He caused continued suffering of his people to continue flipping us off. On top of everything else, that was enough. Yes, not the most rational thought process.
Yes it would be nice if the US would look at other evil people across the world and act more consistently, but the resources and the public will isn't there to do that. (and a lot of those evil people are smart enough to suck up better) Yes, a sometimes grim picture.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2004 03:45
|