Sarge Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Here is a letter from the President to Congress. Take a gander. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) At approximately 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on December 16, 1998, at my direction, U.S. military forces conducted missile and aircraft strikes in Iraq in response to Iraqi breaches of its obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The strikes will degrade Iraq's ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its ability to threaten its neighbors. This action, carried out in concert with military forces of the United Kingdom, enjoys the support of many of our friends and allies. It is consistent with and has been taken in support of numerous U.N. Security Council resolu-tions, including Resolutions 678 and 687, which authorize U.N. Member States to use "all necessary means" to implement the Security Council resolutions and to restore peace and security in the region and establish the terms of the cease-fire mandated by the Council, including those related to the destruction of Iraq's WMD programs. United States strikes are ongoing. United States forces have targeted facilities that are actively involved in WMD and ballistic missile activities, or pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors or to U.S. forces conducting this operation. At the same time I ordered the strikes, I authorized the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Southwest Asia. These forces include U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force units to reinforce those forces already present in the region. These forces will remain in the region as long as is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States. I directed these actions pursuant to my authority under the Constitution as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive, and to conduct U.S. foreign relations, as well as under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) enacted in January 1991. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with Public Law 102-1. I appreciate the support of the Congress as we continue to take all necessary steps to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Sincerely, WILLIAM J. CLINTON Yep, written by Bubba himself, in Dec of 98. Slightly stained on the corner:D. Even Bubba knew about this capabilty, along with the UN. Does anyone here honestly think this capability just disappeared after this action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 well done. I think they want to know where they are "Now" though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 While there may or may not have been any weapons in iraq before we invaded, I think the telling sign is that we all knew beforehand that this post was going to have some kind of punchline. It just points out that few, if any, of us are going to believe the next mention of proof of WMD in Iraq. I don't think that bodes well for bush. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 DB...quite the contrary....the majority of Americans don't care......they know the right thing was done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 And I'm one of them. I could give a rats arse if we found or find WMD. Saddam is a sick bit(h and had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 I'm not saying that I care really, but it's an interesting point. How many americans believe that Iraq posessed WMD? And if it was all a lie, then why? Why not say, we're taking out sadam because he is a destabilizing force in the region? America seems to care not one bit if they were lied to. I'm certainly going to give them more time, because they have more pressing issues to deal with in iraq, but if it turns out that IRaq never had these programs and that powell lied to the UN, then I'm a little stunned by the fact that no one cares. I'm not even sure that I care, except for how it relates to our international policy. If we make a habit out of lying to other countries I think it weakens us. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Translation: Bubkus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 The problem I see with this latest position, is that, so far, none of the reasons this administration used when it was franticlly searching for a reason, (any reason, just so we can get a war and get my rating up) for this war has panned out, yet. The administration, two months after the war, is still shopping for which reason the people will buy. (And, it's hard to sell the "liberate the poor, downtrodden people" line when we're also explaining that we can't let them vote, yet, because our polls indicate they'll vote a way we don't like.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Larry, I think it's ridiculous of you to allege that Bush went to war with Iraq to boost ratings, especially when his own father lost the very next election only 18 months later after the first Gulf War. You can certainly question the justification for war, but that doesn't fly. Whatever you think of Bush, it's awfully hard to question the man's convictions. Not only that, it's almost laugh-out-loud funny how the people who accuse him of being too stupid to hold office are the same one's who accuse him of cooking up every conspiracy imaginable - no matter how complex - to further his political gains. Enough already! I'm on record for both supporting Bush and the war. I'm very concerned about the lack of WMD's being discovered there, however morally justified the war was otherwise. Those other moral justifications are after the fact, and while they are important, the fact is that we put our credibility in the world community on the line and so far that credibility has not been born out. There are dozens of regimes that we could destroy/remove on the same moral grounds that are being cited now as justification for the war. The problem is that we - correctly so - have said that we are not in the business of removing every last such regime. We're looking for threats, and so far the most tangible threat that we cited prospectively has not been discovered. While I shed no tears for the death/destruction/removal of Saddam or his supporters, I am concerned about this country's credibility when it comes to the next step in our fight against international terrorism or rogue states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 well...Larry...I thought this whole drama fell out along these lines: one group of Americans went overseas to fight a threat they found serious enough to warrant the use of force while incidently liberating a people....so that another group of Americans who have no inclination whatsoever of ever participating in the common security could have the opportunity to fight the gravest threat they perceive: their own government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 well...Larry...I thought this whole drama fell out along these lines: one group of Americans went overseas to fight a threat they found serious enough to warrant the use of force while incidently liberating a people....so that another group of Americans who have no inclination whatsoever of ever participating in the common security could have the opportunity to fight the gravest threat they perceive: their own government. Don't you think that may be a tad self-righteous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Yomar...of course....but that's how it's playing out.........this society has become very stratified: and not just along lines of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 3, 2003 Author Share Posted June 3, 2003 End result of all of this.........there are a few less a$$holes in the world that are up to no good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 and a few people who aren't assholes who hate the US. -DB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 so what?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer and a few people who aren't assholes who hate the US. -DB Which ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by StuckinIA Which ones? I think he is refering to himself, or at least it seems that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by StuckinIA Which ones? I think he is refering to himself, or at least it seems that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Uh, most of Europe springs to mind. Some of the moderates in the Middle East would also qualify as people we would nromally get along with who are less than thrilled with us for going to war t ofind WMD and not finding/securing them. Washingtonpost online yesterday had some interesting stuff about how we are currently perceived overseas. It's not very good news. I know, I know nobody on here cares what other people think. However, the people on here seem full of piss and vinegar towwards the French too. Has anyone considered why the French have acted like they have? To my mind it's because they are trying to set themselves up as a counter power to the US. Well, we're making that pretty easy for them. Also, have you looked at the polls through Europe about whether we have made the world safer with our war on Iraq? Their answer is a resounding no (I tend to agree). But maybe you can understand why if they think our actions threaten them they are more willing to throw whatever weight they have internationally behind France to counter balance us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Originally posted by redman While I shed no tears for the death/destruction/removal of Saddam or his supporters, I am concerned about this country's credibility when it comes to the next step in our fight against international terrorism or rogue states. redman, my feelings exactly. Saddam can burn for all I care, and its disappointing that it appears he actually wasn't crushed beneath tons of rubble. I realize a lot of people profess not to care what anybody else thinks. Those are often the loudest complainers about what other countries are doing and saying about us, and the same people who won't eat French toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 gbear is absolutely correct....Assad in Syria springs to mind...... the apologists for murder, genocide, torture spring into moral action!!! it's all about being "liked" fellas........fits so perfectly with the situational, outcome dominated ethics that has dominated in certain "intellectual" quarters for so long........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 I think redman said it best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 please adduce credible, no-kidding evidence of the impact on the war against terrorism. "Unbridled Speculation" may prove nice as a past-time, but it doesn't speak to what is happening. Beyond the atmospherics of being "liked"....what has been the impact, for instance, on intelligence sharing; coordination in the pursuit of terrorists; anti-terrorism planning conferences; law enforcement coordination; the implementing of infrastructure that facilitates speedier communication of anti-terrorist information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 My questions still remain What else could those mobile chemical labs be used for? What else could chemical tipped missiles be used for? What else could cause chemicals to show up in the Tigris and/or Euphrates? Why dont you believe the Iraqi scientists who claim they helped destroy WMDs days before the war started? What else can a secret underground nuclear facility be used for? We have plenty of proof of WMDs. What we lack is an actual weapon. On a side bet. Anyone want to guess how long it takes for one of the leftists to claim ignorance to any or all of these questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 3, 2003 Share Posted June 3, 2003 Kilmer, I wish I had posted the article, or maybe I read it here, I'm not sure, but there was an article, I believe it was Friday, that said the labs could have easily been used for conventional artillery... I'm no expert on artillery, so I don't know if that was true or not, I only know that I read someone give an alternate option... That being said, I am not saying that I think those mobile labs were not possibly chem labs, but I will say that having a gun doesn't mean you have bullets. We (a nation) were told that Iraq could strike at any moment against us, that was obviously not the case, at best, they were trying to develop chem weapons. Another poster a while back showed an article from the 80's stating how the rivers were poluted with chemicals from the Iran/Iraq war. There were trace amounts, which was what I believe that they have found now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.