Clinton Signed 'Iraq Liberation Act' Into Law 1998
Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 01:52PM October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release
October 31, 1998STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
Well, whaddya know! It looks like this isn't "Bush's war" after all. Democratic opposition is simply a political concoction. This is America's war and has been for 15 years. The Bush administration promotes the identical agenda in Iraq from regime change to halting Saddam's WMD program to promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East. Clinton even dismissed the excuse Democrats use today that sectarian strife in Iraq has been going on for too long and cannot be reconciled saying he "categorically reject[ed] arguments that this [freedom within Iraq] is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else." Sound familiar?
Then on December 16, 1998, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered a U.S. strike on Iraqi military and security targets partnered with British forces. Pres. Clinton offered a lengthy explanation in defense of the strikes. The full transcript of Clinton's remarks can be read HERE. The highlights are:
“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…..
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.
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.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
In short, the (U.N.) inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
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."
BRAVO! Do yourself a favor and read the entire transcript of Pres. Clinton’s explanation justifying strikes on Iraq by US and British forces. He gave a more coherent description than Pres. Bush has in the last 6 years.
Now the U.S. military strike against Iraq occurred on the eve of Clinton’s impeachment hearings resulting in their postponement. The four articles of impeachment charged Clinton with perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power in the Monica Lewinsky affair. The timing of military action in Iraq appeared to be a tactical maneuver by Pres. Clinton to avoid the humiliating proposition of becoming the first President in U.S. history to be impeached (which is what later happened), under such embarrassing circumstances. Republicans criticized the move for that reason, although most still supported the action against Iraq.
Congressman Gerald Solomon (R-NY) wrote:
"Bombs Away -- Save Impeachment for Another Day?"
"It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it."
Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under Bush Sr. said:
"While I approve the action, I think the timing stinks, frankly."
Then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Georgia) said:
"...(the strikes were an example of) the U.S. leading the world by exercising its military power in an appropriate way."
At the time, Democrats reacted angrily to the criticism of Clinton's motives. For example, Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) said:
"(The GOP reaction is) as close to a betrayal of the interests of the United States as I've ever witnessed in the United States Congress. It's unforgivable and reprehensible."
Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD):
"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."
Daschle and Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) issued a joint statement defending the timing, saying:
"Any delay would have given (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine international support for our efforts."
Where are these Democrats today, and why are they opposing the Clinton law and initiatives that they so vehemently supported in 1998? In fairness to Bill Clinton, despite the timing (which very well may have come from ulterior motives), it was the right thing to do. His mission in Haiti was right, his mission in Bosnia was right, and his mission in Iraq was right.
Should Bill Clinton arrested on war crimes for civilian deaths suffered by the strikes in Iraq and Bosnia? If not, how can liberals so hypocritically demand that action for Bush? And how could the U.S. bomb "Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs" in 1998 if there were no WMD? And if there weren't WMD (which there were), doesn't Clinton share the same culpability that Democrats claim for Pres. Bush? Clinton was right no matter what his motive, President Bush is right, and if Democrats would stop pretending to be bi-partisan and actually be bi-partisan, America might work toward unity. As former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said,
"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."
Amen.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/870995
Dems, Foreing Policy, Iraq, WMD 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (72)
This could be America's finest hour, the end of years of struggles, backed by both Democrats and Republicans, except that American leaders want to tell Iraqi Kurds to go to (you know where), again. It was President Clinton's watch, as I posted on my blog, that the Kurds did suffer (you know what) on earth. I used the real word on my blog.
Why should this nation bring back another generation of brave American soldiers in shame? I posted about the Kurds, and about white-flag-waving retreat-in-defeat leaders. I belive the citizens need to shout it from roof tops -- white-flag-waving retreating-in-defeat is not an option.
There is absolutely no reason for America to have to leave Iraq in shame. It is unwise, it is unAmerican, and it makes me question the moral values an leadership values of all those leaders wishing to empose the shame of defeat on another generation of Americans.
Well, well, well, what do we have here? *snort* looks to me that the Dems cannot seem to get anything straight or what the side they are really on.
Should Pres. Clinton be arrested? I really don't have a good answer for that. I think he did the right thing even though it was done under-some rather pathetic circumstances.
EXCELLENT article and research.
It was news to me that this was official policy during the Clinton administration. Very interesting indeed.
"This is a time for our country to be united, even though we're divided on other matters."
Amy, amen indeed!!!
AubreyJ.........
This bill was passed by a Republican controlled house, and was it a Democratic controlled Senate? does anyone wish to research this? The point is that Clinton signed the bill thereby not forcing an override by 2/3rds.
He signed the bill, making it an act and trumped this up. Now, the fact that he didn't ACT on what he signed is yet another example of all mouth and no action.
Great job with all this research, Amy. I really do appreciate that you post quality essays nearly every day. That's tough to do. :-)
I love that this one shows that President Bush didn't make up the Weapons of Mass Destruction and that he actually carried out the plan proposed by the former President *who was of a different political party*. I had been wondering if some of the current leaders in the Democrat bunch sang a more supportive tune when a president they wanted was in office...
Roxie, what I enjoyed seeing validated was that Saddam used WMD before, and not only on the Kurds:
No, Clinton shouldn't be arrested any more than Bush should. I don't understand why the Bush administration has done such a poor, POOR job of defending this war effort. For crying out loud, if Johnny could find this document for me in an hour couldn't the President? Geesh!
I particularly like this by Clinton:
Is this not what Republicans have been saying about leaving Iraq?
Amy,
Great job in finding this information and I think it's important.
I feel that why many Americans, on both sides, are against the War in Iraq is not the WMD Story. I Think they just don't see a connection between 9/11 and Iraq and think that we lost focus in going after the people that planned and attacked us then.
Just me opinion...
Wow, Amy awesome post.
Clinton believed that Iraq had WMD, so he decided to create a war in November 1998, called Desert Fox, which bombed installations in Iraq believed to be facilities that harbored weapon related programs. Many Iraqi citizens were killed from the bombs.
Scoot over! It's my turn now!
You've outdone yourself here, Amy! This absolutely proves the duplicity of the Democrats, although we don't really need more proof. They prove it every time they open their mouths. But this is excellent and I'm going to leave a link to you on tomorrow's post.
Great job! :)
Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
Pelosi: Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can't even see the light on this. It's a tragedy. It's a stark blunder.
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=5961868&nav=2FH5
Yeah, Bush's war. Pelosi makes me wretch. I wish I could hand deliver Amy's post to the honorable Speakerette.
I can't understand where all the liberals went. I guess there's not much to argue about there so they'll just avoid it. This is TOO funny.
:)
I was thinking the same thing, Amy-- so much for "Bush's war"
Excellent!! Bush didn't start it - Clinton did!!
How quickly the Dems forget...I guess that's politics and politicians...
Great blog - adding you to my blogroll. Please feel free to visit sometime.
With all do respect....
I guess you completely missed my comment.
That'OK, what ever!
Until you understand the opposition, you'll never get it right.
We will all just go back and forth.
So simple. yet so far away.
No, Maxwell, I hear you. I don't consider you a liberal... do you?
There actually IS a 9/11 connection, but even if there weren't, the U.S. had a policy opposing Saddam that had to be addressed. That's what Bush did, and like all war Presidents he is unpopular. History will see this differently than we do today.
I'm not a liberal but I do believe in comment sence...
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
Oh, if only certain documents could be declassified!!!!! Doh!
Let's just say there are some things Soldiers see that are the equivalent of smoking guns, but out of respect for our nation and its laws, our President refuses to exploit for mere political gain.
If there was a document or a photo anywhere on this planet that showed a connection between Hussein and 9/11, believe me it would be out. That would have giving our President everything he needed to attack Iraq. The American people would be behind him and this War in Iraq 100%, no questions asked. To hell with the American people, the World would have been behind the Iraq attack 100%. Republicans would still be in power today.
To think that this administration would keep that kind of information from the American people and have them feel the way they do about this War and lose an election is ludicrous.
That’s beyond common logic.
Look around you….
We, Republicans are losing face. Do you really think this President would allow that to happen if he had proof that he was correct in this War.
You don’t think he’s so cold hearted that he wouldn’t even show the families of our fallen the proof that he held?
I will be overseas this next week and I’m actually meeting with some soldiers just back from Iraq, old friends. I’ll run this one by them jus for laughs.
There is nothing to laugh about regarding this post. What don't you understand, Maxwell, about Bill Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Bill into law in 1998? A fact is a fact, and it's not humorous to me that the Democrats simply ignore it and call this "Bush's War!" It is not simply "Bush's War." We Repbulicans are "losing face" as you say, because we Republicans refuse to stick together and stand behind the president. We have RINOS in Washington D.C. and that doesn't help anything either. I totally disagree with your comment here.
Gayle,
I think you misunderstood what I'm trying to say.
I was addressing Johnny's comment, not the whole post.
I was simply trying to say that if there is documentation of a connection between Hussien and 9/11, don't you think Bush would use it and not only bring the Republicans togather, bring Americans together on the War in Iraq.
I do and I'm sorry if I came across anti-Bush, believe me I'm not anti-Bush. I'm concerned about where Bush is taking the conservative party.
Please read all my comments again and I think you see what I was trying to say.
You'll notice that Democrats only demand we unite to succeed on great objectives when THEY are in the White House.
But expecting them to remember that they held these objectives and made these statements when a Republican sits in the White House is wishful thinking.
The minute Hillary gets in the WH they'll act like they came out of a coma and once again discover the need for a united front on national security.
And you won't find any former GOP presidents going overseas trashing their policy and claiming it was a "mistake."
Why do people falsely believe that we must leave Iraq because Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11?
Terrorism has spread dramatically since President Carter gave it a nation, by blessing the Ayatollah and denouncing the Shah of Iran in the 1970s. Two and half decades after giving Islamic revolutionary terrorists a nation, they today are exporting missiles around the world to kill those who oppose their Islamic world order. They are working to make nuclear weapons.
Something smell rotton about the twisted view that we should leave Iraq, a nation currently at war against terrorists -- some of whom are coming in from President Carter's Iran.
It appears Democrats have joined the terrorists in shouting, "Death to America."
Max:
I do have access to an operational document that clearly connects Saddam and Al Qaeda - but so what? We cannot win the PR war because (a) WMD is NOT the only (or even primary) reason we deposed Saddam/Ba'athist regime; and (b) democrats and the MSM are openly duplicitous on their positions that even if we located the motherlode of WMD in Iraq today, they would claim it means nothing and claim that "Bush's" war is a "disaster" for other reasons. Such as sectarian war, about which Pres. Clinton said: The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."
Excellent post. Amazing how tough words are in Democrats mouths, but when Republicans act, they backstab ya. Being Mrs. Clinton, guess that comes with the territory after what 7,8,9 love affairs? That's not love, that's convenience of power sharing.
Good point Roxie.
Everywhere Jimmy goes, a Tyrant grows!
Iran, Palestine, Venezuela.
He should do a commercial for Miracle "Tyrant" Grow.
I do not want that man involved in anymore political negotiations or voting audits representing our country.
He is single handedly going around the world destroying it by sloughing off innocent people into the hands of tyrants.
15 people have now resigned from his Carter Center after his book release. Go figure, he gets funding from many Arab connections. No wonder Arafat was his Pal.
Maxwell, "The American people would be behind him and this War in Iraq 100%"
That remains fully unsubstantiated. I knew many Americans that called for no war on any nation whatsoever, right after 9/11. Remember when troops were first sent to Afghanistan, and we knew bin Laden was there? Well many Americans I knew didn’t want any involvement on the WOT from the get go. So your statement is less than accurate.
Saddam met with Al Qaeda many times, as outlined in the commission report. But there are no documents that claimed he was on the planes during September 11, 2001. He was actually back at his palaces. One must remember that 9/11 terrorists came into Canada and the US with Iraqi passports. Saddam may have not been directly involved but he had no love of the United States- that was for sure. I doubt if he cared prior to 2001 if Al Qaeda, a Sunni radical organization, remained in his realm training to attack America. One of the big problems are we have millions of documents, but little translators to go through these items.
Guys,
I just couldn't let this go. Its off-topic, but well, in a way, not really. It ties in with a biased media that is majority democrat. From CutNruN...
"What struck us most was how deeply the Iraq war has radicalized today's generation of young Muslims in Britain. Whether extreme or mainstream, they are angry about the war, angry that their country so devotedly follows U.S. foreign policy, angry at what they see as a worldwide war against Muslims and Islam." by Christiane Amanpour.
After the 9/11 stunning blow, I had to fly out the next week looking at everyone remotely suspicious, worrying about friends and relatives getting out of NY OK. I resolved to find out what happened in Afghanistan, the Middle East. I'd heard about Taliban and problems. But it was just snippets I'd remembered, not realizing Osama had declared war on America thru a Fatwa.
Once home, it took me only a few months to come up to speed on most of what we're talking about today. Islamic radicals were preaching hatred to children, brainwashing them from the time they're 5 until "graduation" in madrassas of Pakistan, producing KillBots. This worked against the Russians and we left after defeating them. Mistake, big mistake on our part.
But it is not just there. Also in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq... and the list goes on about where and how radicals are trained up in warfare, hatred of infidels, and two worlds, one of war, one of peace. America is in the world of war. It will only be at peace when it is fully Islamic and converted over to the path of Allah.
How is it, that I can figure this out, but Miss Amanpour is still "shocked" today? Shocked that we're infidels? That women are inferior, count as half a man? Did she not read the Koran after 9/11?
The regurgitation of warmed over liberal muck about hate America first club is thick in her article. Instead of recognizing this hatred has been building since WWII, from Wahhabism, Sharia Law, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood(murdered Sadat - Zawarhiri), and all the other radicals over the years hating Israel as well since 1948. She allows them to "blame America". The same America who has given billions to all these countries over the years.
How ridiculous. She could easily torn the logic apart with a few easy paragraphs and statements of hatred prior to 9/11. But that would not fit into the America is Satan meme or the "international" quality of CutNruN.
This is precisely the reason we're losing this war. The inability to make judgements of good/evil friend/enemy. Real roots of the problem, vs propaganda tactics pushed by the Islamic extremist and "moderates".
The Democrats for whatever reason buy into this weak-kneed excuse that "We" are to blame for the anger and rage.
Please note the text I highlighted angry at what they see as a worldwide war against Muslims and Islam.""
This is simply untrue. They have been at worldwide war against us since Iran, since Beirut killing 241 Marines. Since the first bombing of WTC in 1993. We've been sleeping fools all this time until 9/11. The reason the radical Islamic leaders are so angry is because...
We're Finally Fighting Back and killing them too!
Funny how death kinda hurts when its happening to you in your own countries.
To give Miss Amanpour some credit, she at least gets to the point of deception later on. And she does call it bigotry these guys are pushing in other areas. Sigh, after 6 years, you'd think this is a no-brainer for a supposed expert in the Middle East. Reminds me of the new Democrat Intel Committee leader, Silvetre Rheyes who did not know Al Qaeda was Sunni and guess they were "predominately" Shia.
And we wonder why Congress is lost sometimes...
To be even more accurate. Islam has been at war with the entire world since Muhammad declared war on all infidels who would not convert or pay taxes and be subdued under his law. Just ask Spain, they remember.
1400 years of war.... Constantinople now Istanbul, history just repeating itself and a reporter who does not explain this is guilty of bad journalism on a normal day. But during war?
LOL!!! I love the fact that Johnny thinks that just because he's in the Army and was in Iraq for a year (what was it? Three years ago now?) that he can con the rest of us into believing he had security clearance that would allow him to even SEE a document proving a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Hey, if he has access to it then why hasn't he brought this to the attention of the Bush administration? They obviously don't have any documents that prove a connection otherwise they wouldn't have ultimately admitted that there WAS no connection. About the only classified documents Johnny probably ever had access to were the ones that forbade him to reveal the milspecs of the US Army-issued Fry Daddy.
"I do have access to an operational document that clearly connects Saddam and Al Qaeda."
Johnny,
I took your first statement as you had knowlege that Hussien had something to do with 9/11 and you could prove it. That's what I based my comments on, I missunderstood, sorry.
Everyone knows that there was a connection between al-Qeada and Hussien, that's old news. Everyone also knows that the two couldn't stand each other.
I was thinking you had and held the News Story of the Century. Hell, I was getting ready to call Fox News.
December 16, 1998: Bill Clinton’s Statements on the dangerous Iraq state to the American Public:
"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".
Apparently, President Bush inherited this secret document knowledge from the Democratic Party leader. You wouldn’t think ‘ld playboy Bill Clinton would act without documents’, eh?
So apparently anyone that attacks President Bush on the dangerous environment of Iraq attacks the Democratic Party. That is the beauty of Amy’s post. It is checkmate. For too long the Democratic Party has tried to reinvent former President Slick Willy’s, Teflon Don, Mr. I do not know what a ‘ to be’ verb ‘is’, Mr. lets write a college thesis about how socialism is good and democracy and capitalism are bad, history.
Quint, LOL, you have no idea what you're talking about. You know nothing of his security clearance, his MOS or what he did in Iraq. My hope is that the military will allow some of the classified documents that prove the arguments people such as you pose to be false to reclassified.
There was indeed an al-Qaeda/Saddam connection. This is a matter of fact and whatever there may be in classified documents wouldn't change your mind, anyway. These documents only prove what you've already dismissed... like the numerous documents confiscated early on in the war that have been translated to english. HERE's an example.
This is a translated document from the stash at Leavenworth which FIX4RSO posted on his site.
There are many examples of this.
Anyway, why are you more qualified than a soldier just because you HAVEN'T been there, done that? That confuses me. How are you an authority? What soldiers have you been talking to? Johnny works around Generals, including GEN Petraeus who's taking Casey's place in Baghdad. One of my best friends is GEN Casey's speech writer.
In case you haven't noticed, the Bush administration has done a terrible job speaking for this conflict. Condi, good. Cheney. Good. Bush, not a great communicator.
There are documents proving liasons existed in Iraq for Saddam as a go-between to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. I think the administration and the Army has bigger things to tackle right now than going over memos to reclassify, but when that happens, I'm sure you'll accept it, right?
PS... here's the text of that document from Iraq:
Al-Qaeda (Zarqawi, Zawahiri, bin Laden) are all a radical sect of Sunni. Saddam was Sunni. It really isn't that great of a stretch to understand how these two could be related. Is it any wonder the terrorist formerly known as al-Zarqawi was treated in Uday Hussein's hospital in Baghdad after sustaining injuries in Afghanistan following the US engagement in the fall of 2001?
And why did Saddam Hussein offer Osama bin Laden asylum in 1999 if there were no connection?
And how do you explain THIS?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! They have more important things to do than reclassifying a document that can supposedly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a definitive connection between Saddam and 9/11???? Oh, that's such a riot. They'd be falling all over themselves to reclassify and release it if that was the case. Patreus is replacing Casey because Casey recommendations didn't meet with Bush's approval, so, like he always does, Bush is replacing him. Why was Johnny only in Iraq for a year when others are serving two and three tours? Twist an ankle? Shoot himself in the foot, did he? Sent home for gross insubordination?
Oh, and I have not doubt that Johnny DOES work around Generals. He cooks for them, doesn't he?
Excellent post, as always, Amy. :)
Johnny, no matter what, I'm glad someone _has_ seen what really connects all the dots. I know that there are more folks out there, with access and need to know, that have as well. Just knowing makes me all the more mad at these lunatics that cling to a lost cause - that Democrat Politicians are credible and capable of defending this country. There are far too many examples to prove otherwise.
I posted on the "governing law of inaction" and the fact that we have been so focused on the "Red Menace" we missed Islamofascism completely. Please do some homework before defending your leaders, people. There are some good Democrats out there, but the _politicians_ and Liberal Democrat-types are the ones we truly need to fear. Read my The Red Menace Overshadowed True Evil post - I've chronicled quite a clear path to where we are today, and why WMD, while a powerful motivator, is not the primary reason we all need to stay on point!
And, The Chief made an excellent point, way up near the top of these comments - think back to who was really running the House and Senate back when Clinton signed this act ... Slick Willy was just tryin' to dodge the whole thing. A draft-dodgin', anti-American, non-Patriot like him executing a pseudo-war? Yeah, I'm a believer ...
Start lookin' into generational warfare and historical shifts in how wars are waged, and why. We are in something very deep, and I expect more and more documentation to be very, very, classified for a long time. I'd rather _NOT_ see the real docs so that we can maintain the operational advantage and elements of surprise.
We all know why the UN doesn't need to see this stuff!!!
OK, off to use this as the genesis to a new 5GW post!
(Amy and Johnny, you both ROCK!) :) Thanks for being here!!!
Oh, and Quint, I am glad you are taking shots at Johnny. It just proves your mettle and motivation, if not your complete lack of understanding when it comes to classified documentation.
Oh yeah, right, that's why Democrats love to leak to the NY Times and such. They do NOT UNDERSTAND why we have classifications for documents, nor do they look far enough ahead to see the _real_ damage they are initiating. It's all to win a political point.
Or deflect ...
So, Quint, what are your bonafides? Are you in any way associated with the intelligence business/field? Have you had to keep information to yourself, or sign a document that binds you to such an agreement?
There are very real reasons for not releasing information before it is no longer operationally important - and very great ramifications to releasing it too early.
I'm glad the Bush Administration is NOT using these documents to win a political point. At least there are some grown-ups around here trying to win the bigger conflict than that with some freaks in Washington DC.
Hmmm. I wonder what the great generals that Johnny supposedly works for would say if they knew he was on here claiming to have access to a classified document proving the connection between Saddam and 9/11. Should he really be bandying information like that around the Internet? I would take the time to explain my link to the world of government intelligence...but you wouldn't be able to leave this blog alive if I did.
Cute, Quint ... "leave this blog alive" ... too many movies, man, too many movies ... :)
Oh, and since you think Johnny is only a cook for Generals, it really does make a difference that he has need to know, right? And, being a cook, he'd never be able to get to the document or be able to remove it ...
Oh, wait, maybe Johnny knows Sandy Burglar? That EXPLAINS IT! The cook got the doc from a Clinton-ite!
Whew, I can sleep better now. :)
I should not have raised the spectre of the classified doc. FWIW, there is no OPSEC violation going on here.
Too all readers, I am not a cook. My military occupational specialty is 56M, Chaplain Assistant. I work for the HQs Chaplain who reports directly to the Commanding General in my current assignment. In the war I was assigned to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division in the Al Rashid District of Baghdad. My duties were to provide security for the Religious Support Team, serve in convoys (including several missions as convoy commander), interface with Iraqi nationals, prepare religious impact reports, transport chaplains of different faiths around the Brigade Area of Operations, and many other sundry duties like Sergeant of the Guard, etc... I also served 4 years as a Squad Leader in the Brigade Assault Command Post, as a Jumpmaster, and a lay minister conducting Catholic religious services in the absence of a Chaplain. I do not want anyone to think more of me than I actually am. And its an affront to all servicemen and women to make fun of any MOS, even Food Service personnel - many of whom serve as Base security Soldiers and convoy operators. In this war there is no "rear area" - every action outside the base is a movement-to-contact.
And I salute you for it Johnny, Thank you.
I don’t think it helps any cause to get into name calling and attacking each other.
I feel that when we stoop to that level, it shows everyone our true side, a side of stupidity.
A CHAPLAIN ASSISTANT??????????? Boy, I DEFINITELY hold a cook in higher respect. Yeah, bud, you were REALLY in the trenches with the other grunts, weren't ya? It's no wonder you have all this spare time to do all this research for your wife, you have no real demanding duties! You go on eternally about how honorable your service is/was but if you are so high-and-mighty perhaps you should have volunteered for infantry duty. There are guys who are volunteering to go BACK to Iraq after having served two tours and yet...you're stateside, a chaplain's assistant, doing everything you can to promote this insane war instead of doing what you can to get them out of this quagmire and home safely. I must say, one would never know you and Amy are Catholic as much as you love promoting the escalation of a war that was based entirely on lies and deceptions to get us into it. Most Catholics I know are extremely peace-loving people who abhor war in any form.
You know, Bush is right about being a Uniter instead of a Divider. Pretty soon he'll have the whole country, his own party, and the rest of world UNITED against him.
I read on another blog, Amy, where you compared Bush to Moses in their respective lack of ability to communicate. The big difference is that Moses actually HAD the God of Abraham at his back. Bush only IMAGINES that he does and that makes him just as dangerous, just as much of a religious fanatic as Osama bin Laden.
Mr. "Quint", I do not care what you think of my service, but for the sake of the readers, I served in a Combat Engineers unit, the 187th INFANTRY Regiment, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd INFANTRY Divison, and the 325th Airborne INFANTRY Regiment.
Quint, do you have any idea what a 56M does? Didn't think so.
Actually, yes, he was in the trenches with the grunts. He trains and serves with the infantry units he's assigned. You know, like 4th ID, 101st ABN and 82nd ABN. Johnny's too modest to promote himself but I'm his wife, so I have bragging rights:
-promoted in 13 years to E-8
-JumpMaster, Senior Parachutist
-Airborne
-Air Assault
-Combat Action Badge for engaging in combat in Iraq
-Bronze Star for service in Iraq
-hundreds of raids in Baghdad
-led convoys through the streets of Baghdad and participated in hundreds of them
-was an intermediary for Imams and the Iraqi and US governments
-met with religious groups/helped gather intelligence about insurgents and terrorists
-saved a man from a murder in progress in Baghdad
Etc. etc. etc. etc. Believe it or not, the Chaplains Corps has its finger on the pulse of the war on terror.
What have you done for your country, Quint?
Think about this, Quint: the war on terror is a war about religious ideology. Who do you think may be the most valuable players in such a war? Maybe the Chaplain's Corps? Good guess, brainiac. Why do you think the Army has been using his combat expertise to develop war training doctrine?
And what's the most manly thing you've lately, Quint? Read the Washington Post or watched CNN? You're really in the loop!
Just because we don't act like the NY Times and leak classified information doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about. Now if you can't keep the conversation on task post your comments somewhere else. Johnny is an outstanding soldier who has the respect of all who know him. I doubt the same can be said for you.
The "Iron Rakkasans" clearing the Iraq International Airport before moving north to Mosul was valiant and nasty battle. See: 187th Infantry Regiment , Iraq War II ( Second Gulf War). Combat Engineers Sweep for IEDs... needs some cohunes for that job alright.
Okay, Maxwell, I went over your comments and apologize for coming across so harsh. I thought you were talking about Amy's post!
PS..... even if he were a cook he'd outrank you, Quintessential ignoramous. Besides, all branches are necessary in the military; I'm not desparaging the cooks at all. They're just as necessary as the rest of the MOSs.