Eight years ago today, President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change in Baghdad, but stopping short of direct military assistance.
“The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home,” Clinton said. “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….
“[W]hile 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.”
At the heart of the Iraq Liberation Act, it said:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.’
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.
(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.
(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that ‘the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’
(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
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.
An act without action. It’s interesting how Clinton declared Saddam’s government “in material and unacceptable breach” of U.N. resolutions, made it his policy to support the replacement of Saddam’s regime with democracy, and rejected arguments that Iraqi freedom was unattainable because of Iraq’s history, ethnicity or sectarian make-up.
The Iraq Liberation Act authorized Clinton to spend up to $98 million arming and training Iraq opposition groups. When he left office in January 2001, Clinton had spent almost none of the money. (Can you hear Chris Wallace? “Do you think you did enough, sir?”)
Less than five years after the Iraq Liberation Act, President Bush followed through. Bush took action to liberate Iraq.
Frank Warner
SEE ALSO: ‘Heroes’: Pentagon unveils a series of stories on courageous GIs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
SEE ALSO: Libby leak case is about the war and how Joseph Wilson covered up for Saddam.
More Iraq history from John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hans Blix and others:
http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
Not to be missed.
They all voted for the 'Patriot Act' they now denounce too!
Posted by: Morris | October 31, 2006 at 10:01 AM
Thanks for this timely reminder. Clinton talked alot about the threat in Iraq but couldn't even put the money that was appropriated where his mouth was.
Posted by: Mike's America | October 31, 2006 at 10:49 AM
Instalinked again, Glenn doesn't mind typepad blogs :)
Great story in any case, and always good to keep in mind. Whatever Clinton and the Democrats' reasons, this was a good move and one they are trying to pretend isn't there like Oz telling Dorothy to pay no mind to that man behind the curtain.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | October 31, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Not only can I hear Chris Wallace -- I can see that little smirk on his face! :-)
Posted by: jayrob76 | October 31, 2006 at 11:42 AM
Clinton was just a g.d. chicken unwilling to spend a trillion dollars and spill lots of blood. Thank God he is gone. Bush has the balls to do what is right, despite the consequences. I hope my fanatacism came through. Gotta go on coffee break now, can't wait to return to the web.
Posted by: lk | October 31, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Clinton was just a g.d. chicken unwilling to spend a trillion dollars and spill lots of blood
...and he was willing to shove his head in the sand till Saddam landed a nuke on New York. But he was really tough on Waco.
Posted by: gm | October 31, 2006 at 04:43 PM
gm - And which of his many nukes was Saddam going to land in NY City? We have much in common, I too like to believe in non-existent things - like the Easter Bunny. And, BC didn't have his head in the sand, it was in Lewinsky.
Posted by: lk | October 31, 2006 at 05:04 PM
lk: Do you believe in mass graves with 300,000 men, women and children in them? Do you believe Saddam started two wars that killed about 2 million people?
Or are they part of your Easter Bunny mentality, too?
Posted by: George | October 31, 2006 at 10:18 PM
Yes, SH killed a lot of people, but none that I know personally. You, on the other hand, are suddenly (years after the fact) mourning all those lost. How does one spell phoney - with an f or a ph? Are there any evil dictators (in other areas of the world) whose citizens you are mourning now? Take a look around.
Posted by: lk | November 01, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Hm, so Saddam Hussein wasn't interested in nuclear weapons and would never, ever have gotten any, period? That's your beleif? We know he had WMD, we've found some, Clinton, congress, the UN, everyone knew about them - except, if we are to believe their recent rhetoric, the American left.
Sad stuff.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | November 01, 2006 at 10:40 AM
So, because Saddam Hussein never killed anyone that lk knew personally, we should have left him alone.
lk, did you know anybody that Hitler killed? Should we have left him alone?
Posted by: George | November 01, 2006 at 10:57 AM
We believed that India was unlikely to test the bomb until it did. We believed Pakistan was unlikely to obtain the bomb until it did. We believed that no nation would deliberately disseminate nuclear secrets until the activities of A.Q. Khan were uncovered. Very few, however, doubted that Saddam would use it if he had it. And it was hard to see how we could keep him from getting it.
Posted by: jj mollo | November 01, 2006 at 11:06 AM
I know some camp survivors from WWII, and they lost families. They were good people - it is the faux sympathy for Iraqis from the right that is hypocrisy. You'd like us to level Iraq - as all are guilty, to you. You pretend to have a bleeding heart for people you don't care for.
Posted by: lk | November 01, 2006 at 11:22 AM
lk, you are being nonresponsive. By the way, stop pretending to know what others think to support your illusions.
Posted by: George | November 01, 2006 at 03:02 PM
George- I think in general the USA (citizens) do not give a rats ass about Iraqis. I share that feeling, and think the best way out is to turn out the lights as we leave (take that as you want to - bombs are cheap compared to soldiers' lives). I am of an age - Stone Age, and think Iraq could benefit from starting from that era. Then take troops to Afghanistan, and invade northern Pakistan, search for OBL and his group. Quit pussyfooting around. That's my plan. s/ an effette Christian liberal Democrat.
Posted by: lk | November 01, 2006 at 03:13 PM
George- I think in general the USA (citizens) do not give a rats ass about Iraqis.
Projecting your own feelings onto everyone else is not exactly honest, lk.
I do think your plan to invade nations we have no beef with, but to complain about invading Iraq that we had a laundry list of causes for war against is fascinating though.
It's pretty obvious your opposition to the war in Iraq is based not on anything about it but simply opposition to President Bush and allegiance to a certain radical leftist ideology.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor | November 02, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Wow way to go guys... you made this another Left-wing shoot-out on who is more Liberal and who is the bad person. Republican Part FTW.
Posted by: shoop | February 10, 2010 at 11:34 PM
What?
Posted by: Frank Warner | February 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM