Legislation To Remove Saddam Hussein During The Clinton Years?

Question

Who here is aware that the removal of Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq actually began while Bill Clinton was in office?

Ever hear of the 'Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'?

It was Legislation designed that "it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

The House of Representatives passed the legislation by a 360 to 38 vote. The Senate passed the legislation by Unanimous consent. President Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998.

Now, if everything had gone picture perfect with Iraq who do you suppose would have wanted credit? Instead they conveniently never discuss the 'Iraq Liberation Act of 1998' stating that the invasion of Iraq should never have happened.

usedgoods..

Since March 1996, Iraq had systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

Muscat...

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=2123

I would agree... the Republicans should be shouting about this piece of Legislation from the highest mountain.

Well Gary... you are wrong.. I have read it.

What is your point?

Congress made the following findings...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:1:./temp/~c1056cG9Iu::

Hey101:
I would agree with you and I am somewhat of a hypocrite myself by starting this thread. I just wanted to point out that it is a falacy that the present Administration and majority presently in Congress were the only ones that believed that replacement of Saddam was warranted. The previous Administration believed he should be removed as well. It is just this Administration took action where the previous Administration didn't.

Well Muscat... You are mistaken. first, I didn't attempt to hide any link to the legislation. You're presumption that I did to "hide" something is completely unwarranted. That may be how you work, I don't.

As for having Saddam under control, read my response to usedgoods above. That is what prompted the indroduction of this legislation.

I see my link to "the findings" doesn't work. If you go to http://www.vote-smart.org/ then click on Issues and Legislation in the red navigation bar at the top of the page. Click on Key Votes and then list H.R.4655 in the enter a bill box, click OK. Scroll down and click full text. Click either 1,2,3 or 4. The findings are there. You will find why the Congress felt it necessary to lass this legislation into law.

rockandroll58-79..

*LOL*

I held elected office for two terms. I've already done my duty.. thank you very much... >:)

Answer 1

I don't think the invasion was a mistake. Trying to set up a democratic republic was really the only option. Hanging around to make it work is really the only option as well.

But we have to understand that there is no guarantee that a democratic government in Iraq is going to behave the way we would like.

Answer 2

I see why you didn't give a link to this legislation. It was a smart and gradual way to change the government in Iraq. But like anything started by Clinton, Bush had to trash it as soon as he took power. It called for monetary and other assistance to opposition groups, military training for them and radio and TV broadcasts to Iraq to encourage an overthrow of Saddam.

It stated that the "US should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people" and that Saddam should be tried in an international court.

Was this a bad plan? Why didn't it ever happen? The opposition groups weren't strong enough. Also the fact is Clinton and the UN had Saddam under control. That's why he quit his nuke program and stopped making chemical and biological weapons. There was no urgent need for the US to move against Saddam at that time; he had quit paying his creditors, and it would have been nice to collect, but the national inter erst of the US did not require an invasion of Iraq for this.

Answer 3

Yes, we have heard of it. More importantly, so of us read it, although you obviously have not. Here is Clinton’s statement:


Statement by the President Clinton:

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.


***********************************

proud_2ba...

The point was that only Bush was stupid enough to listen to the neocon nonsense and actually invade Iraq – and I know that you know that this all predates Clinton, anyway.

Answer 4

we did no longer flow into baghdad decrease back in ninety one because of the fact bush Sr. mentioned we'd no invaded iraq. he's commemorated his word. the UN and clinton placed sanctions because of the fact saddam became killing his very own human beings. 3000 american ineffective is fairly gentle compered to the tens of hundreds of iraqi ineffective. the toughest certainty approximately warfare is human beings die. i've got misplaced 3 acquaintances in iraq. and purely dropping 3000 US ineffective over on the threshold of 9 years now's gentle. iraq is going to be in civil warfare no mater what. the country will crumple into 3 international locations a million of shites 2 of sunnies and 3 with kurds. and the shites and sunnies would be going at one yet another with hammers and tongs. i've got mentioned that iraq is merely no longer a u . s . a . as quickly because of the fact the U. S. moved in.

Answer 5

I am aware of the legislation and I cannot figure why the
Republican Party does not bring this out when these anti-
Bush idiots come out of the woodwork!!! I agree with your
question and statement. You should run for office.

Answer 6

I say if the democrats would stop fighting the republicans and vice verse America world be a safer place

Answer 7

Muscat, Saddam was not under control of Clinton or the UN.....are you retarded or just deliberately lying?

Answer 8

It wasn't legislation, it was a resolution. It was pushed through by the Republican congress.
Only an idiot like George Bush would actually THINK he could get away with it.
Duh.....

Answer 9

Shhhhhhh!
Democrats and the News Media don't want anyone to know about this.
Democrats have now surrendered.

Answer 10

and Clinton was president .................how many years ago ?
Incidently we had no business invading and occcupying Iraq and being misled by a president to war under false premises makes it worse. I don't see how one can seek to letigimze what we did there.