Guess Who?

Hint: It was nine years ago today. Long before the September 11th attacks:

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.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors, called UNSCOM. ...The inspectors undertook this mission, first, seven and a half years ago, at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there's 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 -- 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 U.N. 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.

Now, over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's Chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
...
So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM report concludes -- and again I quote -- "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must, regrettably, be recorded again that the Commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

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.
...
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
...
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

December 16, 1998

I'm sure you've guessed by now. Here's the link to the full statement in the Clinton Library and National Archives. Perhaps we have a better idea of why Hillary wants to keep as much of that archive off limits? Too many reminders.

If you're a liberal reading the above, perhaps for the first time, you might be having some difficulty now. Maybe a slight headache in the left temporal lobe of your brain? How can this be? You thought it was Bush who lied to us about Saddam Hussein being a threat to the world with weapons of mass destruction. Did the then Governor of Texas and then Halliburton President Dick Cheney have some secret power over Bill Clinton? Another Monica perhaps?

Or was President Clinton just trying to appease all those nasty Republicans in the U.S. Congress who were busy impeaching him?

If it's easy to forget or dismiss the words of President Clinton above, it's probably easier to forget that senior Senate Democrats from Daschle, John Kerry and Carl Levin also sent President Clinton a letter in October, 1998 demanding that the U.S. "respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

And of course let's not forget that Democrats in the House voted overwhelmingly for the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act and the Senate passed it unanimously.

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. Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

It Took a Bush To Get the Job Done

Despite all the Democrat chest thumping and Bill Clinton bomb dropping Saddam still remained a threat with weapons of mass destruction well into the Bush Administration. It took the resolve of President Bush leading our allies in the successful effort to remove Saddam and place Iraq on the path to democracy long demanded by both Democrat and Republican elected officials.

Reading Clinton's statement today, it seems lost in a time warp. With Democrats who previously clamored for the removal of Saddam Hussein continuing to oppose the successful effort to do just that and bring Iraq back into the family of nations.

My how time flies when you are having fun! And how easy it is for some to forget what is no longer convenient to remember.