somthing every one should read

> Office of the Press Secretary
> ______________________________________________________________
> For Immediate Release December 16, 1998
> The Oval Office
> 6:00 P.M. EST
> THE PRESIDENT: 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 programs, and its military capacity to threaten its
> neighbors. Their
> purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and,
> indeed,
> the interest 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, seven and a
> half
> years ago, at the end of the Gulf War, when Iraq agreed to declare and
> destroy
> its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.
> The international community had good reason to set this
> requirement.
> Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
> missiles.
> With Saddam, there’s 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 –
> 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 U.N.
> 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 U.N.
> 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N.
> 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 report
> 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 inspections 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 cripple the weapons inspections 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 some day, 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 inspections 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, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman
> of the
> Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, and the National
> Security
> Advisor, 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
> advisors, 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 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 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 U.N. 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 caused 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 the
> 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 are
> 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 a 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.

                  END                      6:15 P.M. EST

Do you have any opinions of your own, or do you always post articles dozens of paragraphs long from your e-mail and say, “Everyone needs to read this,” without any further input?

Seriously man, this news is what, several YEARS old.

poor guy, seriously.
funny one.

It is several years old but it brings up a point that I have felt and believed for a long time. Bush (JR) did not start a war with Iraq he finished it. If you disagree with that I just submit that Saddam is now in custody and the country is in the stages of rebuilding from his dictaorship. No small feat considering that it took Japan many years to rebuild with Americian Troops there also.

pretty poor effort IMO.


The main point in the article is that he wouldn’t allow in weapons inspectors and that he probably possesses WMD’s.

Well, weapons inspectors went in and found nothing, told us that repeatedly. Afterwards, Bush issues an order to give up the WMD’s that don’t exist or get bombed. %| Consider also the Nuke programs in Iran and North Korea, and the inspected lack of them in Iraq, and the plot thickens.

The guy was a terrible person and needed to go, but this was the dumbest, shiftiest, worst way to go about it. Bush is a manipulative liar and the sooner people realize that the better.

Wow, I have seen the light! Now I see that the war in Iraq was entirely justified and your American penis is appropriately huge. I can only wish to aquire such big genitalia myself, as I have been living in the dark while newspapers and TV channels have been repeating this very same text for several years now.

Seriosly, why the hell did you post this? %|

I agree that this news is old… what I’m surprised about is the reactions of the elysiun users…


just showing that GWB jr. was not the only president that knew iraq had WMD and that bush was right to remove saddam and that simply because he had not used them on us yet did not mean that he didn’t have the WMD

Let me quote the message you posted:

> 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

This indicates exactly the contrary.


Every politician is a manipulative liar, thats what the job requires and it’s not limited to the US at all. The trick is choosing the lie you are most comfortable with, or the lesser of two evils. If you think otherwise youre being naive. Thats why I am probably voting for Bush. I am pretty unhappy with some of his policies and how things have played out in Iraq, and Lord knows hes not a scholar. However I hate him less than Kerry.

Anyway as far as I know, buried within Hans Blix’s report was a section outlining the fact that Iraq was still activley researching the technology behind WMD’s (I hate the word), which under UN resolutions was enough to justify invasion. The media generally dosn’t talk about this, the same way they don’t mention John Kerry throwing the medals he earned in vietnam over the gate of the white house onto its lawn as a political statement (they were fake though, I guess Kerry is a man of his convictions eh?)

I will admit thats its still kind of a weak reason to invade a country though.

I am beginning to think that we (the US and it’s allies) were duped by Iran. Much (almost all) of our prewar intelligence regarding Iraq came from one of it’s citizens that was also part of a group opposed to Saddam. This man, Ahmed Chalabi, and his group is also tight with Iran. We don’t hear as much about Iran’s nuclear program now that we have a war going on in Iraq. (We don’t hear as much about North Korea either, which coupled with the fact that Bush wants to pull troups out of S Korea and station them elsewhere really really worries me.)

After Sept11th we were paranoid, including the government. I know I was at least, and I saw that many, many Americans felt the same way. Then I was living overseas shortly after so I may have a strange take on the matter. I don’t think however that our government really knew how to deal with the situation because it had no easy frame of reference.

Israel and Britain on the other hand deal with this stuff all the time (IRA and suicide bombers respectivly). I remember reading in the London Times about Blairs (initially) critical stance about early talks of going after Iraq. Either the president convinced him otherwise or he was bullied into it, I don’t know.

The point is we were probably willing to believe anything so that we had something to fight in order to feel secure. I think we may have made a grevious error in judgment, but I do not think it was part of a private vendetta of Bush’s against Saddam.


Everyone should watch this documentary. This isn’t some paranoid conspiracy thing, it’s face to face testimony from some of our finest CIA and military officials. It will leave no doubt in your minds as it’s pretty conclusive.

Uncovered: The Whole Truth

Edit: It’s about an hour long, but if you are truly concerned you should make the time.

You’re being naive in talking as if you’re the only one who has ever heard the lesser of two evils theory.

The truth I see in Bush is that he really wanted to invade Iraq no matter what happened. He was planning it before 9/11, which says a lot about the “war on terror” excuse. You and I both know that the reasons now given for taking Saddam out of power were a hell of a lot better than the reasons he used when he started it. Why the lies? I don’t like the way he uses religion as both an excuse and a way to get people who might oppose him to shut up in the face of being told they are speaking out against god. I don’t like the way he proclaims that god blesses everything America does, because in the past the same has been done to cover every atrocity the USA is responsible for. Religion has no place in the Oval Office.

Kerry’s lies are about things like gay marriage. I think it’s pretty clear that he wouldn’t oppose legalizing gay marriage, but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from listening to him talk about it.

There are lies that are made to appeal to bigots and lies that are made to keep the bigots from acting on their bigotry. I’d prefer the latter… anyway, if you admit that Bush isn’t very smart I don’t see how you could still support him. The last thing we need is a quick-shooting cowboy acting on a premise of his own interpretation of religion rather than logic.

After the debates it’s pretty much unanimous that Kerry came out the winner, but people admit this and still say they’ll vote for Bush. Willful ignorance isn’t a virtue.

Actually I wasn’t talking as if I was the only one who was privy to this idea, rather that your post indicated to me that you might not be. Lets be honest, worldiness and wisdom are not exactly hallmarks of certain members of this forum and quite frankly I don’t know anything about you having never really read any of your posts.

I wasn’t trying to offend you but it seems I did nevertheless.
Howeveer if you want to put words into other peoples mouths do it with someone who is to stupid to fight back.

Can you point me in the direction of a reliable source that documents Bush’s intent to invade Iraq pre 9/11?

Anyway even if he ‘wanted’ to, thats not the same thing as intending to. If I say I want to beat the crap out of somebody that dosn’t mean I will. However if they later do something to provoke me that warrants physical violence it might seem to a 3rd party like a case of premeditated assualt.

There is a difference between lying and being mistaken about something. I have found no concrete evidence that any outright lies were made. However that would mean that one big fucking mistake has been made and that certainly is no comfort the families of those lost loved ones in Iraq.

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory during his administration based upon faulty intelligence, the very same may have happened here. There was a reason George Tenet resigned from his office (besides being a convienent scapegoat); our intelligence community is royally out of sorts.

Its well known that a lot of our information was being fed to us by Ahmed Shalabi. The president and his staff may very well have been believing what they wanted to believe, but that is not the same as lying.

Agreed. This is an annoyance more than anything though.

Kerry’s lies are about things like gay marriage. I think it’s pretty clear that he wouldn’t oppose legalizing gay marriage, but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from listening to him talk about it.

The problem isn’t just about his lies but his ideological orientation. I do not want a democrat in office. I feel very strongly about this and I feel that I have good reason to.

That being said it was difficult for me to make the decision to vote for Bush since I am not a Republican per se, rather a ‘liberal conservative’

Unfortunatley the issue is more complicated than can be expressed in witty non-sequiters and sound bytes.

If being an intellectual were the most important character trait for being president the country would be filled with statues of Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon. The fact is that it isn’t.

Can the rhetoric, winning a debate isn’t the same as being right.

All that aside, debate is healthy for the mind, look forward to reading your reply.


What I see is that he “went to war,” and Congress was content to stay home.

Article I, Section 8, of the U. S. Constitution says in part, that Congress (alone) shall have the power =… “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Article II, describing the office, powers, and duties of the President, is by comparison very short. It says nothing about “undeclared war,” and there was, I believe, a reason for that. The Founding Fathers did not want a King, and one of the principal powers of a monarch is that s/he can singlehandedly start a war. They wanted it to take the vote of (today) about 300 people.

During the upcoming elections, a great many Congressmen and Senators are hoping against hope that your ire will not be reflected upon them, but I believe that this is exactly what should happen. For the past several years these men and women have been content to allow the Chief Executive / Commander in Chief to take the fall, while they sat back and armchair-quarterbacked his actions. This, whether or not you agree with GWB’s actions (and I don’t), was fundamentally and constitutionally wrong. The willingness of Congress to sit back for several years now, as though it somehow were not their “buck to stop,” is truly unconscionable. The President is not a King, and the Congress is not a Board of “Advisers.” The Constitution provides one mechanism by which this country can be committed to a war, and that is declaration. Congressmen and Senators who aren’t willing to step up to the plate should be shown the door.

In most states, you can cast your vote now. I did. I encourage you to do the same. All the factual information you could possibly need or want to know is available at your fingertips through the Internet.

Zarf, watch that documentary I posted above. It details how the Bush administration cherry picked info and generally misled everyone intentionally because they wanted to go to war with Iraq at any cost.

Like I said, it’s chock full of very credible people from the top end of our government, and you shouldn’t ignore it. Don’t turn a blind eye to truth, even if it hurts. You may get some “I told you so”'s from the board here, but you’ll have more respect because you didn’t keep your head buried in the sand.

Pick one. It’s hard to guess what news sources people are going to consider reliable, so dig through there. Many of Bush’s closest advisors have been involved and let this slip out. If you don’t feel like reading through it, this one has a pretty good synopsis. Beside that, beefing up the military was one of Bush’s major goals as soon as he got into office, which historically only has one result… 9/11 was a happy accident for him, since it allowed war with unarguably good reason. The follow-up war clearly didn’t have the relations that he claimed it did, and there were better targets than Iraq, so my conclusion was that it was planned in the beginning of his term (before even reading the afforementioned articles).

What was the provocation? Saddam didn’t have any power to attack the US at all, and the connections to Al-Quaida were heresay and conjecture, debunked as they were coming from his mouth.

This wasn’t his first or only mistake and I forsee many more big ****ing mistakes from this man, for many reasons, don’t you?

I think he was lying because the faulty intelligence was pretty obviously faulty. The media and watchdogs were questioning his claims heavily, as were the inspectors and the UN. I don’t buy that it was all a big mistake, and if it was, he is not qualified enough because he failed to question his advisors and take the opinion of, say, the world into account. Did you catch in the debates that he also hasn’t vetoed a single bill? I wonder if he even reads them…


Agreed. This is an annoyance more than anything though.[/quote]

It’s hard to label something so far-reaching and influential as religion as an “annoyance” for me. Abusing the name of god is a serious issue. Strongly religious people in the south and conservative states trust a lot in the words of their pastors and a fundamentally christian president, that is a very dangerous thing to abuse. I know people hate the Nazi references, but that’s exactly how Hitler came to power. I think it is a very good way to point out just how big of a mistake it is to bring religion into politics.

I’d rather be voting third party myself, but a lot of the things Kerry said in the debates moved me away from that. At first I didn’t trust him… now I do. My major beef with him is his desire to cease the present negotiations with North Korea and his “Robin Hood” philosophy about taxes. His plan for Korea may work, but I don’t believe in punishing success through taxes. I feel that these are his only serious problems. What is it that you have against Democrats?


Unfortunatley the issue is more complicated than can be expressed in witty non-sequiters and sound bytes.[/quote]

I honestly think Bush considers Muslims inferior. His strong fundamentalist Christian tendancies support that. Going out into the world with troops and a Social Darwinism idealogy is a dangerous repitition of history, because the world isn’t what it was 100 years ago when that was common. While he’s doing that he’s whipping up support in the nation by softly instilling bits of hatred in the hearts of Americans against the Middle Eastern culture and lifestyle. It’s not that I support it… but I don’t feel that this hate-mongering is any help.


If being an intellectual were the most important character trait for being president the country would be filled with statues of Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon. The fact is that it isn’t.[/quote]

John Kerry isn’t so much an intellectual, he’s just smart. He’s going to think things through and won’t take any rash actions that will pit the world against us, and I like that. Beside that, there are many varieties of intellectuals, some are right and some aren’t. There were communist intellectuals as there were the intellectuals who drafted our constitution. I don’t think it’s always going to be a bad thing to have one in office, so long as they don’t feel so high and mighty that they won’t listen to advisors. You do know Bush pays little attention to advisors, speech writers, etc. I’m sure. It would be more acceptable if he were wiser in his policy.


Can the rhetoric, winning a debate isn’t the same as being right.[/quote]

I feel that if he can’t adequately defend himself now (hindsight is 20/20), even after preparing and being coached for hours, the debate is a pretty good indication of who is the better candidate. Say what you will, but what Senator Kerry is saying makes sense and holds to criticism. What Bush is saying over and over despite numerous well-founded rebuttals just doesn’t cut it. He’s too steadfast.

I saw an interesting political cartoon on this pasted on my government class door.

It went something like this.

Irresponsible hard-headed idiot voter (drawing of toothless hillbilly): I refuse to change my mind because of new information or current events because I know that I’m right and god is on my side.

Responsible voter (drawing of a man in a formal suit): I carefully analyze current events and new information and make my decision based on such, even if I had a different opinion in the past.

Strong, stable leader (caricature of Bush): I refuse to change my mind because of new information or current events because I know that I’m right and god is on my side.

Flip-Flopping gutless Liberal (caricature of Kerry): I carefully analyze current events and new information and make my decisions based on such, even if I had a different opinion in the past.

It’s ALL Bush! So what if many other world leaders were agreeing with him? What if their intelligence matched his? HE STILL A LIAR! AND A THEIF!

Uh, de-emphasis on “many.”