Politics & Government - 31 March 2007

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

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.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. 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.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

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.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN 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 UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports 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.

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.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

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 a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

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're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


QUICK VOTE
Was Saddam Hussein trying to take advantage of the political turmoil in the U.S.?
Yes
No

View Results



VIDEO
Clinton says attack on Iraq averted potential Iraqi aggression (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

For Clinton, a long day of political juggling (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Larry King Live highlight: Vice President Al Gore on the military air strike on Iraq (12-17-98) Real: 28K | 56K, Windows Media: 28K | 56K

Clinton statement on attack against Iraq (12-16-98) Windows Media: 28K | 56K



TRANSCRIPTS
Clinton defends U.S. attack on Iraq (12-17-98)


President Clinton explains Iraq strike (12-16-98)




POLL
U.S. public endorses Clinton's actions on Iraq (12-17-98)




RELATED STORIES
Blasts over Baghdad during second night of attack (12-17-98)

U.S. boosts Gulf strength (12-17-98)

World reaction mixed; Russia, China harshly criticize U.S. (12-17-98)

House passes resolution in support of U.S. troops (12-17-98)


Impeachment and Iraq fill the president's time (12-17-98)


In-depth: Strike on Iraq


MESSAGE BOARD
Your opinion: Iraq vs. the U.N.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MORE STORIES:

2007-03-31 08:21:36 · 11 answers · asked by jnwmom 4 in Government

I really don't think I should, but no I am having doubts...my husband and I are getting leagally seperated. He is in the military and I know someone will be there for him. He says that I can get a lawyer if I want, so it is making me wonder....

2007-03-31 08:19:52 · 8 answers · asked by Courtney 3 in Law & Ethics

2007-03-31 08:15:48 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-03-31 08:11:59 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

2007-03-31 08:07:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

?

2007-03-31 08:04:52 · 11 answers · asked by Its me 4 in Politics

Be honest now liberals.

2007-03-31 08:03:02 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Pelosi on the Temple Mount is probaly the most defiled it has been (well, second most, the most recent abomination being obvious and current) since Titus sacrificed a pig there.

2007-03-31 07:56:02 · 15 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics

Doesn't it show that politicians will stage any performance to get their ugly faces on TV....

Mind you some of us are never fooled.........

2007-03-31 07:55:42 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-03-31 07:55:22 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

2007-03-31 07:55:09 · 11 answers · asked by George D 3 in Politics

2007-03-31 07:53:54 · 9 answers · asked by Aztlantevich 2 in Law & Ethics

My partner and I are going to court regarding our house which has both our names on the title deeds. I want to buy my partner's share (giving him his equity in the house). He wants the house and is prepared to give me my share. I have not told him how much I received from my mother's inheritance and he states that he can make me tell the court how much I received and if it's alot of money then the court will state that I can go and find another house.

With all that said I have a son, the house is near his school and my place of work and I really don't want to move house nor do I want to tell him how much I received from the inheritance.

2007-03-31 07:48:32 · 16 answers · asked by Candy 2 in Law & Ethics

Is Aggravated Vehicular Assault considered a "violent" crime in Ohio? Can it be expunged? If so how long do you have to wait after completing your sentence"

2007-03-31 07:48:13 · 4 answers · asked by cherokee 1 in Law & Ethics

2007-03-31 07:47:58 · 12 answers · asked by jimpoplay 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

nothing to big(not vp).. im going to have to read a speech in front of 100 or more 10th graders, need some ex about what i should write..--maybe some famous quotes...

2007-03-31 07:46:32 · 7 answers · asked by nickydig9 2 in Elections

2007-03-31 07:45:38 · 12 answers · asked by contrepreneur 1 in Law & Ethics

can you get a ticket are arrested for driveing with open bottles of alcohol in your trunck of your car.

2007-03-31 07:44:55 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law Enforcement & Police

Long story short, a great aunt repeatedly told family members that I was "lying" about my work activities and that I wasn't making presentations at conferences (I actually was). I got sick of hearing about it, so via the US postal service I sent her a copy of a conference program showing my name as a presenter. I also including a nicely worded letter asking her to please stop saying these things about me, that I didn't understand why she insisted on doing this and asking her to please stop. She has now informed everyone that she will be contacting an attorney who will file charges against me for harrassment by communication. Does she have a case? I didn't threaten her, harm her, or use foul language. I simply sent a response to her bad mouthing of me and asked her to stop.

2007-03-31 07:41:05 · 12 answers · asked by Miagirl33 1 in Law & Ethics

Apparantely UFOs are real, according to ABCNews.com. ABC News interviewed the former Governor of Arizona and did not discount his story about his UFO sighting in Phoenix 10 years ago. On the contrary, they are now giving a detailed account of what he saw with supporting testimony.

If the mainstream media is now coming on board, is UFO disclosure going to be part of the 2008 election?

Review the following ABCNews story of March 30, 2007.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2994569&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

2007-03-31 07:40:46 · 7 answers · asked by Wait a Minute 4 in Politics

Please do not respond to my question with insults and put downs. I'm being very serious and sincere, so please try and do the same. I don't really "side" with either political group, but I've been somewhat informed of the differences in thinking between the Dems and Republicans, through the news, and even on Y!A, and personal obsevation. I think I've got an idea of some of the reasons and issues that cause Republicans to agree with the Republican point of view, (conservative, traditional thinking, with most likely a Christian mind-set). My question for Dems/liberals is: What issues or subjects do you feel a moral responsibility for? If you answer that the war in Iraq is immoral, I understand that war is not meant to be pretty, but at the same time, it has always been a part of mankinds existence. It was in Biblical times, and was predicted to take place in our present day. What other issues do you feel strongly about, and are they because you feel "morally" obligated to support or not?

2007-03-31 07:36:32 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Usually, all they do, if anything is give him money, but think where that money comes from- the taxpayers. Why don't they jail the judge, law enforcement or over zealous prosecuter who only used the innocent man to build up their resume so they could advance their career?

2007-03-31 07:36:08 · 10 answers · asked by V for Vendetta 1 in Law & Ethics

I requested a balance transfer from my Capital One card to my Wachovia checking account. They cannot do direct transfers from one account to another, not in that direction anyway. They mailed a check to the Wachovia corporate office instead. Here is the tricky part. Someone at Wachovia rubber stamped it as being deposited into my account. I know because Capital One sent me a copy of front and back of the check. I have never seen the money. Now neither bank wants to take resposibility for the screwup. They send me to the other requesting forms and actions from the other that the other has no idea the meaning of. What are my legal options? Is this a small claims issue to be taken up with Wachovia, based in Charlotte, NC? Or, is there other action that I need to take? I lean towards action against Wachovia because they stamped the check. Somewhere in Wachovia right now, they have Capital One money that has been debited from my account, but that I have never received.

2007-03-31 07:34:17 · 4 answers · asked by sam 1 in Law & Ethics

I am thinking of hiring someone for a childcare position. I would like to ask them for a doctors note regarding thier history of depression - is that legal??

2007-03-31 07:33:42 · 4 answers · asked by LH34 1 in Law & Ethics

Which section of the Constitution states that the President can fire or hire people at any time? which article and which section? thanks!

2007-03-31 07:33:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

The following information on the ticket is wrong:
The date April 31, 2007 does not exist and that is the date of the ticket that was issued.
The make of the car is wrong--ticket states that it is a 1997 Ford Tracer. The Tracer is a Mercury.
The color of the car is Gold but the ticket information is hard to read. It looks like Gas.
The officer states that the weather conditions were clear but it was cloudy.
The officer crossed out the month for date of the appearance without initialing the crossed out date and entered the correct date.

The violation was issued in state Georgia by a Lieutenant who is supposed to be in charge of the Traffic Division for the Houston County Sheriff's Department. The ticket was signed by both of us and the discrepancies were discovered after I got home.

2007-03-31 07:33:06 · 8 answers · asked by jenius 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

that comes into others homes ,and puts their dam nose were it does not belong that the goverment would be better off so that one individual is not trying to screw the other over !!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-03-31 07:32:49 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

This government Rewards People who have a poor or no work record, who are drinkers or gamblers or wasters, sometimes all four. They get offered a whole list of handouts including a guaranteed sum to live on, plus housing costs and council tax paid. By contrast people who have worked hard and long been thrifty will not be considered for these hand outs if by their own efforts they have modest lifetime savings. Is it worth saving

2007-03-31 07:32:24 · 10 answers · asked by Curly Top 2 in Government

Why do they blindly follow the 911 Commission Report that reads like a complete white wash? Are they scared to speak out against their own government?

2007-03-31 07:30:47 · 10 answers · asked by Ugly Betty 3 in Politics

I guess George was the 1st elected Pres but there were 14 Pres's prior to that. They were not elected though. They were appointed. What do you know about that?

2007-03-31 07:25:48 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections