I'll go slow. Clinton signed an order, Public Law 105-235, on 14 October 1998 to fund rebel militias. This is materially different from Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338), signed 31 October 1998, which says: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.The Act, which also funds resistance, provides direct military aid to the rebels, too.
The order that had us moving in a Coalition force (it was never unilateral, despite the best attempts by propagandists) with several of our long-standing allies not been violating the Food-For-Oil program (eg: France, Germany, and Russia) came from the United Nations Security Council. It is worth note that Russia, China, and France had partial opposition to this resolution, stating that they didn't like that it seemed to authorize action without subsequent votes, and they wanted to be 'seized' to the idea that a new vote would be taken, though not required.
It is my opinion that GWB did a very foolish thing by having our representative bring this up for vote again, as it gave the ambiguity that you still feel from the international community. Once it was the mind of security council countries to take action, they had all the authority they needed pre-existing, and shouldn't have confused things. That act, alone, has lead to most of the remaining issues between the Coalition forces, the UN, and those that were profiting from illegal trade with Iraq during the embargos.
So, I *KNOW* that Clinton signed an order authored by Lott to set the policy of our government to support a regime change in Iraq, which included the establishment of plans for moving the country to a democracy. Clinton had one of those plans in force before he left office. Bush created a similar plan upon his arrival. When he saw a way to get two things done with one military action, Bush took advantage and fulfilled the policy statement, UN resolution, and looked to make a major change for the peace of the world.
What he forgot is that Bravado is a significant part of middle eastern culture, and Hussein was either being lied to by his staff, or was lying himself in order to inflate the danger of Iraq, to prevent incursion from Iran or Saudi Arabia after two significant failures of their forces (Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait annexation). We walked all over their military, and ended the proper war months ago, without finding weapons we sold Iraq years ago, and without finding systems for creating new weapons that had been identified by UN intelligence and US intelligence acting under Clinton and Bush (Clinton, Lott, Lieberman, and others were firmly convinced Iraq had WMDs from that information).
I don't believe that the occupation has turned sour. I have friends from Iraq that tell me they have more water, consistent power, and better conditions than they have had in years. Bagdhad is not quite back, yet, because it was under almost martial law and people are being a little overly exuberant with new freedoms, but the police there are getting a handle on things as time goes forward. I see the change in government happening on 30 June, just as Bush says it will, and that the Iraq Defense Minister will need us, as he says, for months not years. More soldiers have died in the United States this year than have died in Iraq, and many of the reported deaths in Iraq are standard accidents (man fell off roof while on guard duty, man drowned in pool, etc).
The situation in Iraq is ugly, but it was going to BE ugly no matter what - regime change always is. It's much better than it could have been, and for that I am thankful.
I am not blaming anything on Clinton -- just pointing out that it has been a standing policy of our country to see Hussein out of power since Clinton was president. This is not just GWB's deal.
No, Clinton hasn't been president for four years. What of it? Nothing new, but if you like flashing people, go for it.
Oh, and this isn't much about oil, as the position of the new government is to honor old contracts, of which the US had almost none. We'll see how that changes as Iraq reintegrates into OPEC.
Re: It's about oil not WMD!
The order that had us moving in a Coalition force (it was never unilateral, despite the best attempts by propagandists) with several of our long-standing allies not been violating the Food-For-Oil program (eg: France, Germany, and Russia) came from the United Nations Security Council. It is worth note that Russia, China, and France had partial opposition to this resolution, stating that they didn't like that it seemed to authorize action without subsequent votes, and they wanted to be 'seized' to the idea that a new vote would be taken, though not required.
It is my opinion that GWB did a very foolish thing by having our representative bring this up for vote again, as it gave the ambiguity that you still feel from the international community. Once it was the mind of security council countries to take action, they had all the authority they needed pre-existing, and shouldn't have confused things. That act, alone, has lead to most of the remaining issues between the Coalition forces, the UN, and those that were profiting from illegal trade with Iraq during the embargos.
So, I *KNOW* that Clinton signed an order authored by Lott to set the policy of our government to support a regime change in Iraq, which included the establishment of plans for moving the country to a democracy. Clinton had one of those plans in force before he left office. Bush created a similar plan upon his arrival. When he saw a way to get two things done with one military action, Bush took advantage and fulfilled the policy statement, UN resolution, and looked to make a major change for the peace of the world.
What he forgot is that Bravado is a significant part of middle eastern culture, and Hussein was either being lied to by his staff, or was lying himself in order to inflate the danger of Iraq, to prevent incursion from Iran or Saudi Arabia after two significant failures of their forces (Iran/Iraq war, Kuwait annexation). We walked all over their military, and ended the proper war months ago, without finding weapons we sold Iraq years ago, and without finding systems for creating new weapons that had been identified by UN intelligence and US intelligence acting under Clinton and Bush (Clinton, Lott, Lieberman, and others were firmly convinced Iraq had WMDs from that information).
I don't believe that the occupation has turned sour. I have friends from Iraq that tell me they have more water, consistent power, and better conditions than they have had in years. Bagdhad is not quite back, yet, because it was under almost martial law and people are being a little overly exuberant with new freedoms, but the police there are getting a handle on things as time goes forward. I see the change in government happening on 30 June, just as Bush says it will, and that the Iraq Defense Minister will need us, as he says, for months not years. More soldiers have died in the United States this year than have died in Iraq, and many of the reported deaths in Iraq are standard accidents (man fell off roof while on guard duty, man drowned in pool, etc).
The situation in Iraq is ugly, but it was going to BE ugly no matter what - regime change always is. It's much better than it could have been, and for that I am thankful.
I am not blaming anything on Clinton -- just pointing out that it has been a standing policy of our country to see Hussein out of power since Clinton was president. This is not just GWB's deal.
No, Clinton hasn't been president for four years. What of it? Nothing new, but if you like flashing people, go for it.
Oh, and this isn't much about oil, as the position of the new government is to honor old contracts, of which the US had almost none. We'll see how that changes as Iraq reintegrates into OPEC.