Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Albright says Republicans wanted war with Iraq in '98

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:27 PM
Original message
Albright says Republicans wanted war with Iraq in '98
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14199947.htm

PHILADELPHIA - Republicans urged the Clinton administration to invade Iraq as early as eight years ago, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Monday at a political fundraiser.

"I remember when we were in office, starting in 1998, various Republicans were coming to us wanting a ground invasion," Albright said.

She did not name the people she said made those requests nor say what prompted them. But 1998 was when the Iraqi government defied a United Nations-imposed "no-fly" zone and began firing on planes attempting to enforce it.

Albright's remarks came in response to a question about an article in Monday's editions of The New York Times. The story said the Bush administration had decided to go to war two months before doing so "even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
paul_fromatlanta Donating Member (545 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well she was secretary of state and was in a position to know what they we
Well she was secretary of state and was in a position to know what they were asking for in 1998.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. The NeoCons tried to get Clinton to attack Iraq in 1997....
...Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. If only some of those Republicans had signed on to some sort of document
or program or foundation that would let us know which of them wanted that war...


p
n
a
c


??????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Is there some reason the press
is blatently avoiding any esposé
of anything that smells like PNAC.

They don't even dare mention it by name.
Very curious indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Albright should be VERY VERY careful...
MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Madame Secretary. Thanks for being with us.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: Great to be with you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Has the president made a decision yet to attack Iraq and when?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, the president has all the options, and we are watching very carefully, and we have basically said that this cannot go on indefinitely, and as the president said yesterday, the Iraqis do not need any further warnings.

MARGARET WARNER: Is it possible to turn back at this point?

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, if Saddam Hussein complies -- the entire international community is saying to him that he has an obligation to comply with the Security Council and to rescind his decision about not cooperating with UNSCOM. And if he does that, then we can continue down the road of trying to have this comprehensive review, which the Security Council offered, and see where that leads us. But he is the one that has to agree that UNSCOM can come in and do its job.

<snip>

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just make the following point: There are people -- UNSCOM is not working now. We are very concerned about what is happening in terms of his weapons of mass destruction. He is a threat to the neighborhood. He has actually, as we know, invaded a country. He is also a threat because he wants to have and has had these weapons of mass destruction. And if UNSCOM could work, we could assure ourselves that he would not be able to develop or deliver those weapons of mass destruction. So the - if in fact, we do take an action of force, it will be designed in order to degrade his ability to develop and deliver the weapons of mass destruction and prevent him also or make it less possible for him to be upset in the neighborhood.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/albright_11-12.html

etc... etc... all that stuff could have been said by Condi or Colin...


fair is fair
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. PNAC
read their letters to Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You beat me by this much || LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. PNAC, that is what they were formed on nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. And Bush has said he would have invaded even if he knew there was no WMD.
And I think Paul Wolfowitz was one of the neocons going around in 98 trying to get us into a land war (Bill Clinton said so at one point). Everyone thought he was nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. PNAC LETTER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON :HERE..
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

SNIP:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. She's only a few years late on that discovery but...
better late than never?

Shrub was itching to invade Iraq before he was even selected by the SC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-27-06 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC