The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Sponsored in the senate by Bob Kerrey, McCain and Lieberman - Sponsored in the House by Rep Benjamin Gilman and Chris Cox - Passed by both houses, signed into LAW by President William Clinton.
Summary of Bill: To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
See full bill here: It is pretty short if you want to read it... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c105:4:./temp/~c105Dgl2EW::
Section 3:
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.
Section 4 (2): 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.
WHY THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF POSITION - NOW???
2007-03-06 18:29:18 · 5 answers · asked by uab_skinhead 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh yeah - Section 7:
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
2007-03-06 18:37:41 · update #1
What happened was a Republican President followed through on it. Democrats don't like that. Clinton probably intended it to be one of Gore's first acts as president, but then he lost the electoral college.
2007-03-06 18:58:56 · answer #1 · answered by DOOM 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Read Robert Baer's book "See No Evil". He was a CIA agent working in Iraq and in 1995 had the chance to change the regime in Iraq through Iraqi opposition groups ready for a coup against Saddam. What did the US govt do? That's right nothing. They sat from 1991 and allowed the Kurds to beat the hell out of each other! They didn't offer any support to the rebels against Saddam. Another little known fact that the US conviently forgets when it talks of Saddams atrocities against the Kurds is that one Kurdish clan worked with Saddam in smuggling oil from Iraq post 1991. They also were prepared to accept Saddams help in fighting the other Kurdish clan. So much for the US invading and helping those poor Kurds who have been fighting each other for much longer than most here can remember!
US policy seems to have been to sit tight until the opportunity arose to invade the country (regardless of how thinly disguised the lies were).
2007-03-07 02:57:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Sorry your link did not work...I think the change of position stems from the fact that it was piss poor planning on the administrations behalf for an exit plan. They did not see all of the terrorist threats, they did not see all of the secretarian violence happening...with all of the intelligence we have access to, we should have accounted for this. We went to war because we thought Saddam had WMD's....he didnt...manipulation of intelligence, maybe..only the big wigs know for sure, we can only speculate. Is the world a better place without Saddam? Most definitely, was it worth the cost??..that is a debateable question. I just wished we had gone for Bin laden.
2007-03-07 02:55:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One word: election. These clowns in both parties don't give a rat's *** if we fail or succeed--at anything. They care about the face time with the TV cameras and keeping their soft flat asses in their seats for another 2, 4, or six years. It's time for a viable third party--if for no other reason than to wake up these turds we have now. Our well-being and success is running a distant second to their number one priority--themselves.
2007-03-07 02:37:07 · answer #4 · answered by rickmcconaghy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
1998 Clinton was still in office for another 2 years!! The difference is that Clinton didn't go to war, Just maybe his sectary of Denfense told him what a mess it would be leading to civil war. So he decided not to go into war. He has fly-bys. Much like Colon Powell told Bush not to go into war and Bush ignored it. I guess if one hasn't be in actual war then they should listen to people who have.
Also remember the majority of congress was republican. They do play the you vote for support my bill I will support your bill game.
2007-03-07 02:52:00 · answer #5 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋