Did President Clinton really have a policy for "regime change" in Iraq?

[Blue_Roses]

Not so fast Mr. Bush. Seems "regime change" has been a popular word with this administration way before 2000. Obviously, the same "players" are in the game.


---
According to Paul Wolfowitz's Statement before the House National Security Committee in 1998 a much different story is told.

Paul Wolfowitz:

In fact, it is hard to know what U.S. policy is toward Iraq because it is such a muddle of confusion and pretense. Apparently, the administration makes a distinction between telling Amb. Butler not to conduct an inspection and telling him that the time is inopportune for a confrontation with Iraq and that the U.S. is not in a position to back up UNSCOM. That kind of hair-splitting only further convinces both our friends and adversaries in the Middle East that we are not serious and that our policy is collapsing. It is only reinforced when they see us going through semantic contortions to explain that North Korea is not in violation of the Framework Agreement or when they see us failing to act on the warnings that we have given to North Korea or to Milosevic or to Saddam Hussein.

-snip-

The problem with U.S. policy toward Iraq is that the administration is engaged in a game of pretending that everything is fine, that Saddam Hussein remains within a “strategic box” and if he tries to break out “our response will be swift and strong.”
Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

-snip-

The Clinton Administration repeatedly makes excuses for its own weakness by arguing that the coalition against Saddam is not what it was seven years ago.The situation today is easier in many respects: Iraq is far weaker; American strength is much more evident to everyone, including ourselves; and the Congress would be far more supportive of decisive action. If this Administration could muster the necessary strength of purpose, it would be possible to liberate ourselves, our friends and allies in the region, and the Iraqi people themselves, from the menace of Saddam Hussein.

-more-
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm


------
Also, a letter to "encourage" Clinton was sent to Gingrich



The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501

The Honorable Trent Lott
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510-7010

Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing. The result, we argued, would be that the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War. We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice but, as we warned, has begun to abandon its own policy of containment.


--snip--
In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged" by Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam or sustain the credibility of its own policy of containment, the administration has placed us on a path that will inevitably free Saddam Hussein from all effective constraints.

--snip-

Sincerely,

Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner

John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan

Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz

R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick



--more--

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

[kentuck]

1. It depends on what your definition of "regime change" is.....

I do not doubt that Bill Clinton would have been happy with Saddam out of power. He probably worked covertly inside and outside the country to overthrow Saddam. However, his definiton of "regime change" did not include lying to the American people and the world about going to war with Iraq and would definitely not included an illegal invasion - preemptively. So to argue that Bill Clinton was for regime change is to argue apples and oranges.

[Cannikin]

2. PNAC tried to get Clinton to go to war but he wouldnt play.....

So they put a Bush back in the White House who would play....
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac_timeline.htm

'The administration' didnt come up with the plan. It was presented to them by people who stood to profit from the war...

If I suddenly stop posting or commit 'arkancide', DONT FORGET ME!

[Wickerman]

6. and was it Policy or Plan?

Of course Clinton had a plan. You have contingencies for all unstable regions. Bush* is the one who pushed common sense governance with his Policy.

[underpants]

8. US policy is often a wish list

Yeah the US policy was that we would prefer if Saddam was not in power just as we had policy on North Korea as well as every country and region around the world.

A half century of US policy towards North Korea included wanted a democracy to replace the dictatorship and keeping the threat of military action on the table. Clinton used the threat of military action (which comes is many forms) front and center in negotiations on their nuclear power program. No reasonable assessment thinks that that combination NK would have at least 100 warheads by now had it not been handled in that way. W has reversed 50+ years of policy towards NK on at least one (if not two) occassions by promising non-aggression.

So US policy towards Iraq was set but HOW you attempt to implement it offers several options and to varying degrees. A full military occupation is the extreme and as we have seen stretches the military to dangerous levels and in occupying an entire country commits the military for the foreseeable future.

[Wickerman]

22. well said

[Blue_Roses]

11. Exactly

that is my point in posting this. I'm so tired of hearing Bush jump to his usual defense by blaming or "inserting" Clinton's name. Facts. Just the facts...something we don't get from this administration.

The American people need to be aware that "regime change" didn not start with Clinton, as the Bush administration would like to present.

Bush is trying to dig himself out of a hole by blaming Clinton.

[ma4t]

37. The definition seems to change depending on who's in office

Let's try this definition of regime change:

"To topple the current ruler and establish a government more to our liking through the use of military power"

While were at it let's try this as a working definition of unilateral:

"Having no meaningful contribution by other nations"

And lastly let's try this for illegal invasion:

"An invasion not in response to an act of war and having no supporting U.N. resolution"


If those seem to fit then please explain why the action in Haiti under Pres. Clinton was not a "unilateral, illegal invasion to effect regime change." Given that he did exactly that to a small 3rd world Caribbean nation, it's not hard for me to believe that Mr. Clinton was willing to contemplate doing the same in Iraq. Granted he didn't do it, but the original question was whether or not he had plans.

[La_Serpiente]

3. I know that

Clinton is on the record as saying that he would have voted for the War Resolution. However, whether it was on the grounds of WMD or Liberman's posistion, I do not know.

[cthrumatrix]

4. regardless if clinto did or didn't --- this is spin and cover

[Buffler]

5. Yes

Congress passed and Clinton signed the Liberation of Iraq Act. It has been the policy of the United States that Saddam Hussien be removed from power in Iraq since 1998.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Yes, of course it was the policy....

the question is how it would have been accomplished.

There are dozens of ways to have achieved that goal that DIDN'T include invading a country and installting a puppet government.

We held out against the Soviet Union for 50 years without going to war. Same with Castro.

Why were we so damn impatient with Hussein?

[Cocoa]

17. it favored using exiles

it may even have been written into the law, to fund the INC to bring about an overthrow of Hussein.

Qualitiatively different than invading and occupying, but I find Clinton's succumbing to PNAC hard to justify.

[cthrumatrix]

16. Shrub did NOT go to the UN based on WMD's remember

this is what it is about...deception..lies...and ho wdo you explain oil maps and rewards

I call this a crime agaisnt America...we spill our blood for thier Oil interests...

Regime change was never "sold" to America as an "imminent threat"

[Blue_Roses]

19. A policy that left

tons of loopholes.

For example the last section refers to section 4 (a) (2):

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act

"SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations."


http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_liberation.htm

[Mikimouse]

7. The most important difference between Clinton

and the idiots in the present administration is that Clinton is an attorney, and understands the legal ramifications of governmental practices. As such, he also understood the importance of following the letter and spirit of international law, something that these goons cannot even begin to fathom.

[glarius]

12. Why is it that I, a non-American believe there would NOT have been a

war against Iraq if Clinton was still in office?.....I believe that this SANE and INTELLIGENT man would find a way to keep Saddam in check without the slaughter that has ensued!...

[Mikimouse]

15. I have to agree with your assessment, and the fact that

you are a non-American only drives the point, rather than detracting from it. Outside observers are probably better situated to see the problems with US foreign policy than those of us who are embedded in it. Having said that, I will go one step further. I am convinced that the 911 attacks would not have occurred, had * not been appointed to the WH. I think it was obvious to people outside the US that with * in office, the international climate was about to change, and they were right. I suspect that Boucher's statement to the Taliban concerning the placement of the pipeline through Afghanistan was probably the straw that broke the camel's back ("Accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs"). Don't give up on us, however, we're going through our societal 'growing pains' and will eventually mature.

[Fleshdancer]

9. Not sure. But I DO know Clinton warned Bush about OBL

The Clinton administration warned Bush that OBL was the biggest threat to watch out for so if they want to blame Clinton for having paper work on regime change, fine. But then they should also admit that they were warned about who was a more imminent threat.

[Oilwellian]

13. Indeed...

Bush was so pre-occupied with Iraq and "divvying up" their oilfields, he completely ignored the more imminent threat against us. And if Bush was so intent to mirror Clinton's policies, why did he cancel everything Clinton had in place to capture Bin Laden?

[Blue_Roses]

21. Bingo!

And if Bush was so intent to mirror Clinton's policies, why did he cancel everything Clinton had in place to capture Bin Laden?

[UTUSN]

14. The Shrubbite Policy Was A.B.C. - Anything But CLINTON

The CLINTON policy was a wish, like, Gee it would be good if Saddam were gone. But from Day One, the Shrubbites pursued A.B.C., ignorning the transition briefings, ignoring the HART-RUDMAN report, ignoring GORE's white paper on airport security. They shelved everything-CLINTON pending CHEENEE's supposed review of everything. It's irrelevant for the Shrubbites now claiming they were pursuing a CLINTON policy.

[Zero Gravitas]

18. Probably

Anti-Saddam does not mean pro-unilateral unprovoked invasion. I'm sure the Clinton Admin would have liked to see Saddam gone, but they did not manipulate intelligence for political reasons, knew that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and valued our good international relations.

The PNACers are too ideologicaly motivated to make do with mere reality, they had to twist everything to make it look that invading Iraq was justifable. Bush* himself was too incompetent to realise how much he was manipulated and fell for their arguments.

In short the Clinton people were too responsible and had too much understanding of the pros and cons to go down the path the Busm Admin has.

Clinton wanting to see Saddam gone is no excuse for the irresponible & reckless actions of Wolfowitz Of Arabia, von Rumsfeld et al.

[Cat Atomic]

20. That Wolfowitz quote on France and Russia is damning.

Coalition building through extortion. Lovely.

[Cannikin]

23. PNAC again...it all comes back to it.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac_timeline.htm

[Blue_Roses]

24. And that was in '98

so they knew they were in for a fight already with these countries ...explains alot.

[arewethereyet]

54. it certainly is

but its nothing you didn't already know, right ?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

26. So why didn't Clinton invade between 1998 and 2001 ??

when he left office? Why did he not build up the forces in Qatar and Kuwait? bviously "regime change" did not mean a preemptive invasion to Bill Clinton, regardless of what was in the Iraqi Liberation Act...

[Blue_Roses]

27. Madaline Albright was on

book-notes the other day, talking about some of this from her book. I watched her publicly say that we should NOT have invaded Iraq, because Saddam was contained and that he DID NOT impose an immediate threat, unlike bin laden. The plans were to help the Iraqi people in the event that THEY overthrew Saddam.


It's amazing how the repubs will distort the truth to support their cause.

[dustypen]

28. bush will blame

our growing obesity problem on clinton as well.

its not parents fault for not encouraging exercise, its bill's fault for being re-elected and adding 2,000,000 jobs... all these employed people had so much money to spend so they bought big mac's.

Bush plans to solve the obesity problem by elimiating jobs (oh wait, he's already done that!!!) and eliminating people's ability to eat, what a great way to loose weight!!!!

wake me when he is out of office...

[Blue_Roses]

30. He would be

a complete idiot to blame "lack of exercise" on Clinton. Clinton was the one who had the secret service huffing and puffing as they ran along side of him while he jogged.

LOL--now that was funny. They couldn't even keep up with Clinton.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

31. Yep looks like we supported a democratic Iraq

And we support pupy dogs and apple pie and a democratic North Korea and Zimbabwe and hey let's go for a reach a democratically elected President in the US (ah the good old days).

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

32. What is your interpretation of the first few paragraphs?

<snip>
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.

...more

[kentuck]

33. ..and the last paragraph?

<snip>
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.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

38. Opposition groups

Sure that sounds like a good idea and in keeping with the general US policy since the end of WWII, the spread of democracy and selfrule.

Is the 3ID an Iraq opposition group?

This is really in response to your thank for the welcome above. The WHAT, democracy in Iraq, is clear but the HOW WHEN by WHOM are pretty much left open there. Aside from supporting opposition groups.

[glarius]

42. Where does it say WE WILL INVADE if things don't unfold as we wish?

Clinton is a sane, intelligent man who I believe would have kept you out of an actual war....

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

45. Hhhmm missile strike option yes it is

[Blue_Roses]

46. Link please

n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue_Roses]

52. well, you just gave it away

by sending me to a right-wing website called national women's organization AGAINST national women's organization. It makes it clear now WHY you took every quote OUT of CONTEXT.

You really are desperate, aren't you. You really mustn't worship at the alter of any man, especially one that has you so hoodwinked as this administration.

[kentuck]

49. Well, it ended Iraq's WMD program, didn't it?

It's still a lie.

[Blue_Roses]

36. Thanks for PROVING my point

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.

_________________________


NO WHERE does it say we are gonna go in an "liberate" Iraq ourselves. It says we will support OPPOSITION groups. In other words, those who try to overthrow Saddam.

Nice try ktampa1, but get the whole truth next time

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underpants]

40. Like Desert Fox?

That was not really pre-emptive but enforcement... you know laws and all.

[Blue_Roses]

41. The initial question

was meant to bring into question "why" Bush always brings up Clinton's name when he is deep do-do. I'm well aware of the policy, but the context that Bush is using it in, is to justify his reason for pre-emptive strike and that was not part of the policy.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Snappy]

48. B. Clinton

Whether or not there was an actual plan to overthrow Saddam via US military force in the Clinton Admin. is not the point. It's a red herring. The Neo Fascists use that ploy often. This is how they deflect the actual issue. The point is that the Dubya gang, misrepresented &/or outright lied about the WMDs and AL Q nexus.

Off topic a bit. I believe that Cheney is the Pres.

[KoKo]

50. Point Is: Both 9/11 Massive Terror Attack and Iraq Invasion took place

Under Bush! Not under Clinton. More "pass the buck" stuff here. It wears pretty thin after awhile.

[doubles]

51. Regime change does not translate to an illegal war

We all knew Saddam was an evil dictator and even I supported regime change, who would not like to see one of a cesspool of many dictators around the world eliminated. Supporting regime change includes supporting sanctions, opposition parties/forces within Iraq, or even a bullet to Saddam's head. Regime change does not necessarily translate to an illegal war killing over 10,000 people including 500 American soldiers, costing $150 billion dollars of American taxpayer money for the sake of stealing another country's oil to distribute via as O'Neill points out, a group of companies to manage Iraqi oil contracts, all pre-determined prior to 9/11.

[Cleita]

53. Yep. It was planned during the Clinton administration all

right, but not by Clinton. It was planned by the same group of thugs presently occupying the White House. Their propaganda technique of juxtapositioning Clinton administration and regime change in Iraq in the same sound byte makes it sound like it was Clinton who was planning the regime change. Listen very carefully to the whore spinners like Novack who is an expert at this type of disinformation technique without telling an actual lie.