Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough

[New York Times]

Bill Clinton started the Iqar war to distract attention from his rape
of Monica.

Reprinted with permission of the New York Times, January 30, 1998

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some
experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the
United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the
Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses
weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to
remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that
will fail.

The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win
over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein
wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or
relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly
planning military action - a three- or four-day bombing campaign against
Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is
that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in
worse shape than we are today.

Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing
ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power - if five weeks of heavy
bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won’t
either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use
weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no.
Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and
storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where
all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be
able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials
admit this.

What will President Clinton do then? Administration officials talk of
further punitive measures, like declaring a no-fly zone over all of
Iraq, or even more bombing. But the fact is that the United States will
have shot its bolt. Mr. Hussein will have proved the futility of
American air power. The United Nations inspection regime will have
collapsed; American diplomacy will be in disarray. Those who opposed
military action all along - the Russians, French and Chinese - will
demand the lifting of sanctions, and Mr. Hussein will be out of his box,
free to terrorize our allies and threaten our interests.

Mr. Hussein has obviously thought through this scenario, and he likes
his chances. That is why he provoked the present crisis, fully aware
that it could lead to American bombing strikes. He has survived them
before, and he is confident he can survive them again. They will not
succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass
destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those weapons is to
remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces, and
finishing the task left undone in 1991.

We can do this job. Mr. Hussein’s army is much weaker than before the
Persian Gulf war. He has no political support beyond his own bodyguards
and generals. An effective military campaign combined with a political
strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq could well bring
his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq’s Arab neighbors are
more likely to support a military effort to remove him than an
ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.

Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we
act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized,
other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American
soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international
peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.

If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi
biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the
gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for
deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in
the only policy that can succeed.

https://carnegieendowment.org/1998/01/30/bombing-iraq-isn-t-enough-pub-27
4

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by New York Times

Bill Clinton started the Iqar war to distract attention from his rape
of Monica.

Reprinted with permission of the New York Times, January 30, 1998

Written rightwing radical and
serial liar Robert Kagan.


"After the 1998 bombing of Iraq was
announced Kagan said "bombing Iraq
isn't enough" and called on Clinton to
send ground troops to Iraq. In
January 2002, Kagan and Kristol falsely
claimed in a Weekly Standard article
that Saddam Hussein was supporting the
"existence of a terrorist training camp
in Iraq, complete with a Boeing 707 for
practicing hijackings, and filled with
non-Iraqi radical Muslims". Kagan and
Kristol further alleged that the
September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met
with an Iraqi intelligence official
several months before the attacks.
The allegations were later shown to be
false."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kagan

Post by New York Times
Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some
experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the
United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the
Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses
weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to
remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that
will fail.
The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win
over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein
wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or
relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly
planning military action - a three- or four-day bombing campaign against
Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is
that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in
worse shape than we are today.
Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing
ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power - if five weeks of heavy
bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won’t
either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use
weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no.
Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and
storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where
all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be
able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials
admit this.
What will President Clinton do then? Administration officials talk of
further punitive measures, like declaring a no-fly zone over all of
Iraq, or even more bombing. But the fact is that the United States will
have shot its bolt. Mr. Hussein will have proved the futility of
American air power. The United Nations inspection regime will have
collapsed; American diplomacy will be in disarray. Those who opposed
military action all along - the Russians, French and Chinese - will
demand the lifting of sanctions, and Mr. Hussein will be out of his box,
free to terrorize our allies and threaten our interests.
Mr. Hussein has obviously thought through this scenario, and he likes
his chances. That is why he provoked the present crisis, fully aware
that it could lead to American bombing strikes. He has survived them
before, and he is confident he can survive them again. They will not
succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass
destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those weapons is to
remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces, and
finishing the task left undone in 1991.
We can do this job. Mr. Hussein’s army is much weaker than before the
Persian Gulf war. He has no political support beyond his own bodyguards
and generals. An effective military campaign combined with a political
strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq could well bring
his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq’s Arab neighbors are
more likely to support a military effort to remove him than an
ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.
Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we
act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized,
other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American
soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international
peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.
If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi
biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the
gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for
deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in
the only policy that can succeed.
https://carnegieendowment.org/1998/01/30/bombing-iraq-isn-t-enough-pub-

27

Post by New York Times
4

[Clinton said so]

Wasn't Colin Powell the great black savior who could not fail?

This is part of a special series where NPR looks back at our coverage of
major news stories in the past. Listen to the full audio story to hear
excerpts from Colin Powell's U.N. speech and more of NPR's archival audio.

There wasn't just one moment that led to the Iraq War. But one speech,
delivered 20 years ago at the United Nations, would come to define and
undermine the conflict.

On Feb. 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sat in front of
members of the U.N. Security Council. He'd been a staunch critic of U.S.
intervention against Iraq's authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein.

But with the world watching, Powell made a case for war.

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources —
solid sources," he said. "These are not assertions. What we're giving you
are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Powell used information that intelligence officials assured him was
credible. There were reconnaissance photos, elaborate maps and charts, and
even taped phone conversations between senior members of Iraq's military.

"Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons," Powell said. "Saddam Hussein has
used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them
again — against his neighbors, and against his own people."

Powell repeatedly used one phrase during his hour-long speech: "weapons of
mass destruction." He said those words a total of 17 times. It was the
phrase the Bush administration kept publicly using to help justify
invading Iraq.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/03/1151160567/colin-powell-iraq-un-weapons-
mass-destruction

[How much, Joe?]

How much money did Joe Biden make off the Iraq invasion?

AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SABER-RATTLING TOWARD IRAN THREATENS ANOTHER
DISASTROUS WAR in the Middle East, foreign policy has gained newfound
focus in the 2020 presidential race. And former Vice President Joe Biden’s
2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War leaves him with a particularly glaring
vulnerability.

Biden’s vote had already become a sticking point in the race before
President Trump began his provocations toward Iran in earnest. Bernie
Sanders has used Biden’s record to draw a contrast with his own opposition
to the Iraq War. Rep. Seth Moulton, another 2020 candidate, has called for
Biden to admit he was wrong for casting the vote. And a recent
POLITICO/Morning Consult poll showed more than 40 percent of respondents
between 18 and 29 were less likely to back Biden because of it.

But to say the now-Democratic frontrunner voted for the Iraq War doesn't
fully describe his role in what has come to be widely acknowledged as the
most disastrous foreign policy decision of the 21st century. A review of
the historical record shows Biden didn't just vote for the war—he was a
leading Democratic voice in its favor, and played an important role in
persuading the public of its necessity and, more broadly, laying the
groundwork for Bush's invasion.

In the wake of September 11th, Biden stood as a leading Democratic voice
on foreign policy, chairing the powerful Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. As President Bush attempted to sell the U.S. public on the war,
Biden became one of the administration’s steadfast allies in this cause,
backing claims about the supposed threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein and insisting on the necessity of removing him from power.

Biden did attempt to placate Democrats by criticizing Bush on procedural
grounds while largely affirming his case for war, even as he painted
himself as an opponent of Bush and the war in front of liberal audiences.
In the months leading up to and following the invasion, Biden would make
repeated, contradictory statements about his position on the issue,
eventually casting himself as an unrepentant backer of the war effort just
as the public and his own party began to sour on it.

https://inthesetimes.com/features/joe-biden-iraq-war-vote-democratic-
primary-2020.html

[Governor Swill]

Post by How much, Joe?
AS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SABER-RATTLING TOWARD IRAN THREATENS ANOTHER
DISASTROUS WAR in the Middle East, foreign policy has gained newfound
focus in the 2020 presidential race. And former Vice President Joe Biden’s
2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War leaves him with a particularly glaring
vulnerability.

Clue: Biden won the election.

Swill
--
MAGA: My Ass Got Arrested

GO TRUMP! Go farther! Farther! I CAN STILL HEAR YOU!

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>