Sunday, November 19, 2006

Required Reading for Democrats Part 2

The Iraq Liberation Act

October 31, 1998



Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998


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, participa--tory 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.

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.



October 31, 1998.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

clinton was bombing iraq weekly for years. don't get me started on the sanctions.

6:31 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

lol clinton was bombing asprin factories and empty tents, and it wasn't weekly.

So you are against war and against sanctions... exactly how would you handle murdering dictators who want to build nukes just to use on you?

The carrot without the stick?


9:23 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

Hey Super, you need to read my "Deal or No Deal" post.

I think we can work something out... that is if you are open to progressive ideas and the exchange of forward thinking concepts.


10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i certainly wouldn't arm them. we need to stop propping up terrorist regimes. they don't just spring up out of nowhere - there is history that you are forgetting about. if i recall, it was the u.s. ambassador that told hussein that the u.s. would "look the other way" if he went into kuwait.

it is also going against international law to overthrow a government.

are you implying that hussein was building nukes to use on me? THAT is what is laughable. go check out scott ritter. you'll listen to him - he's a conservative.

9:54 PM  
Blogger Red Stater said...

supergirl, you need to get your "facts" from somewhere besides air america radio.

#1- it is President Bush who changed US foreign policy to NOT support the enemy of our enemies. (dictators)
So, you agree with Bush that we should not prop up a dictator just because he seems friendly to the US at the time.

#2- The US did NOT tell Saddam that we would "look the other way" regarding Kuwait, but in fact told Iraq in no uncertain terms that invading it's neighbor WOULD NOT be tolerated.

#3- Bill clinton seemed to have no problem signing the Iraqi Liberation Act and it was NOT determined to be against international law.

#4- Scott Ritter...(lol)
Here is what scott had to say (under oath) about Saddam
" ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq.
Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

While scott ritter was critical of the Bush administration for invading Iraq, he did believe that Saddam had weapons and would reconstitute them if left alone. The person you use as an example of how "laughable" Saddams threat was, believed Saddam was a threat... and he was.

the good news is that Saddam is not a threat any longer.
Scott Ritter is not known as a conservative. Quite the contrary.

You can read all about Mr. Ritter here... since you are such a strong supporter.

10:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home