Looking Back : Bill Clinton's defistating bombing of Iraq in 1999

Why Didn't Saddam Let The Inspectors Inspect?

Answer: Saddam believed that the US was using the inspectors to spy on him. And we were.

As reported in the Washington post:

"For years, two conflicting story lines have battled for world opinion as the Security Council debated the future of Iraqi disarmament. The United States and UNSCOM said their use of increasingly intrusive inspections and sophisticated technology was made necessary by Iraq's resistance to full disclosure of its illegal arms. Iraq maintained that the United States and other unfriendly powers were using UNSCOM's access to the country for espionage.

The new disclosures suggest that both claims were true."

U.S. Spied On Iraqi Military Via U.N
Arms Control Team Had No Knowledge Of Eavesdropping

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 2, 1999; Page A1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060900940.html

This happened under President Bill Clinton. The story was published in major papers. It outraged weapon inspectors, as well as Saddam. But the Us contended that it was legal: ..."because the bulk of the U.S. espionage came under cover of the system of "ongoing monitoring and verification" imposed on Iraq by Security Council Resolution 715."



On September 11, 1998, the Editor of the New York Times wrote an editorial entitled:

On My Mind; A Test for Presidents

So he (Saddam) will continue to fight inspection, and stall on calling off the latest in his series of inspection bans.

The what-next responsibility can only be the President's, if he does his duty -- despite his scandal and shame, despite the ever smaller number of people around him who believe in him. The duty he did not perform before is now his hope for redemption in history.

He is the President. He will have to act on the choice before him. He can tacitly, and denying it all the time, accept Iraq as the military superpower of the Middle East, the germ warfare supplier to terrorists.

Or he can order air attacks on all military and Government installations -- and hope that by missile or revolution, Saddam will be killed.

France won't like it, neither will China. And the new Yeltsin choice for prime minister turns out to be Agent Primakov himself. He is the former high K.G.B. operative -- if there are any ''formers'' among such -- who is Saddam's great supporter abroad.

So, if he is to be taken seriously, President Clinton will have to tell the U.N. that under the U.N. Charter and existing resolutions, the U.S. has the power to do it alone and, if necessary, will.

Presidents Bush and Clinton could have done that before. But the courage and skills of U.N. inspectors, the growth of the danger from Iraqi weapons, from Saddam or his traveling terrorists, eliminate any wiggle-out room for Mr. Clinton.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E6DA1F3EF932A2575AC0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Dealing with Iraq was still on President's Clinton's mind, and at the to of his task list. (Clinton had previously bombed Iraq in September 1996)

The Bombing of Iraq Dec 16 1999

"When U.S. bombs and missiles fell on Iraq on the evening of Dec. 16, ...the targeting list was stunning in its specificity."

"Thanks to the hard work of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), U.S. targeters know a lot more about the Iraqi regime today than they did during the Gulf War in 1991. The United States and Britain now have a diagrammatic understanding of the Iraqi government structure, as well as of the intelligence, security and transport organizations that protect the Iraqi leadership. The same mission folders that UNSCOM put together to inspect specific buildings and offices in its search for concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) became the basis for the targeting folders that missile launchers and pilots used in December."

William M. Arkin an independent defense analyst, spent two months in Iraq after the Gulf War and has written extensively on Operation Desert Storm wrote of the Clinton attack - code named : Dessert Fox:

" How could a 70-hour bombing campaign possibly generate an outcome that the utter defeat of the Iraqi army and tens of thousand of airstrikes over 43 days failed to deliver? The answer is again in the target list – and in the administration's belief that ever more accurate bombs and unprecedented target data can have far-reaching reverberation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/analysis.htm

It was the previous spying efforts with the weapon inspectors that made the difference.

The target list:

Zeroed In

Of the 100 targets on the list for Operation Desert Fox in Iraq, 87 were hit. A breakdown of the seven categories and their key areas is as follows:

COMMAND AND CONTROL: 18 of 20 targets hit

Abu Rajash, Jabul Makhul, Radwaniyah, Republican (Baghdad), Sijood palaces
Ba'ath party headquarters
Iraq Intelligence Service headquarters
Ministry of Defense
Ministry of Industry
Presidential Secretariat Building
State radio and television

WMD INDUSTRY AND PRODUCTION: 12 of 12 targets hit

Biological Research Center (Baghdad University)
Ibn al Haytham missile R&D center
Karama electronics plant
Al Kindi missile R&D facility (Mosul)
Shahiyat liquid engine R&D, T&E facility
Zaafaraniyah fabrication facility (Nidda)

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) SECURITY:
18 of 18 targets hit

Directorate of General Security headquarters
Special Security Organization (SS0) headquarters
Special Republican Guards (SRG) headquarters
SSO Communications/Computer Center
SSO/SRG barracks (Abu Ghraib, Radwinyah, Baghdad, Tikrit)

REPUBLICAN GUARDS: 9 of 9 targets hit

ECONOMIC: 1 of 1 targets hit

Basra refinery distribution manifold

AIRFIELDS: 5 of 6 targets hit

AIR DEFENSES: 24 of 34 targets hit

Sources: U.S. Central Command, Department of Defense

Clinton as Bush. Sr. hoped from an internal change of government, fearful of the cost of an actual overthrow.

When George W. Bush came into office he was facing a considerably weak Iraq. Saddam had held onto power of a country who had one of the largest oil reserves in the world, and didn't like us (or Israel) or President Bush's father, whom Saddam had tried to assassinate in the first moths of Clinton's Presidency. Saddam was at odd with the other Arab countries for not supporting him if the first Gulf War. He stood between George W. Bush's hope of finnaly setteling the Isreali- Palistinian problem.

The George W. Bush administration just needed a reason to go to war, the sooner the better, the quicker the better, the least footprint made, the better

Hilary Clinton did not support Bush's attack on Iraq

Paul: OK now we have two sources:

1.David Brooks of the New York Times,
2.This article from Media Matters tries to clarify the mistaken accusation against Hillary Clinton that she supported the President in his preemptive attack on Iraq. She did not. She supported more weapon inspectors and UN led diplomacy. Paul Grant (follower of Basho)


#1
Clinton's Vote Explained
Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks "went back and read" Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech on the Iraq war resolution and was surprised by what he found.

"On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community 'should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.' Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

"She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

"This is how she’s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, I’ve regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn’t everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also know, from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell and wanted to help."



#2
ABC's Tapper claimed "inherent contradiction" in Clinton's Iraq statements but left out context refuting his claim

Summary: Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements prior to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Tapper's report suggested that Clinton had not advocated further U.N. inspections in Iraq before an invasion, but she did so in the same 2002 interview from which Tapper quoted.

On the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Specifically, Tapper juxtaposed Clinton's comment during a September 15, 2002, interview that she could "support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security," with this February 11, 2007, statement: "I gave [President Bush] authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." In fact, Clinton did specifically argue in favor of inspections during the very interview from which Tapper quoted. Further, in a Senate floor speech before the 2002 vote, Clinton stated explicitly that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."

Tapper asserted that Clinton has contradicted herself on Iraq during a segment comparing the "campaign styles" of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). From Tapper's report, which appeared on the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline:

TAPPER: Clinton assails the war she voted for to appeal to anti-war liberals.

CLINTON: It is, without a doubt, one of the most painful challenges that we have faced in our country because of the arrogance and incompetence of our administration in Washington.

TAPPER: While Obama seems more centrist than his record and views would indicate, Clinton is clearly running to the left. This is what she said about her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq one month before she cast it in 2002.

CLINTON: I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security.

TAPPER: This is what she tells Democratic audiences today.

CLINTON: I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war.

TAPPER: With that inherent contradiction, Clinton faced some tough questions this weekend.

As presented by Tapper, the quote from the 2002 edition of Meet the Press, without more context, leaves the impression that Clinton unequivocally supported pre-emptive military action against Iraq. That impression is false. Tapper juxtaposed that with the 2007 quote -- "I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war" -- pronouncing her statements inherently contradictory.

But as the full Meet the Press interview and her explanation of the vote show, Clinton did voice several assumptions regarding how the Bush administration would proceed, including that full inspections would occur and that the United States would not engage in "any new doctrine of pre-emption." At the beginning of the Meet the Press interview, Clinton made clear that she believed that it was important that inspectors be sent to Iraq and that "it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can." From the interview:

CLINTON: I doubt it. But I do appreciate greatly the president going to the United Nations, making the case, which is really the United Nations' case. And I listened carefully to Secretary [of State Colin] Powell. It's apparent that he's working very hard with the Security Council to come up with a resolution that will set forth an ultimatum, perhaps demand the reintroduction of inspectors and set forth an authorization for force in the event that that doesn't happen.

TIM RUSSERT (host): You would prefer one resolution with those three components?

CLINTON: Well, I'm going to leave that to the secretary and his negotiators. Obviously, that would make it cleaner and faster for everyone, and I hope that's what can come from it. But I know he's working as hard as he can.

[...]

CLINTON: I do think that it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can. I think that's important for the ultimate objective, but then we're going to wait to see how this unfolds over the next several of weeks.

Clinton further explained her position in a Senate floor statement on October 10, 2002 -- the day before the Senate approved the Iraq resolution:

CLINTON: Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform. ... However, this course is fraught with danger ... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.

Clinton advocated that the Bush administration seek a U.N. resolution calling for "complete, unlimited inspections," adding that if Saddam ultimately did not comply with the strict U.N. measure, "we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy":

CLINTON: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. ... If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated ... If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

Clinton went on to acknowledge that the Iraq resolution was "not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first," but stated that she trusted Bush would gain a U.N. resolution requiring full inspections before proceeding with military action:

CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.

Finally -- just as she claimed in the 2007 statement included in the ABC report -- Clinton clarified that her vote in favor of the Iraq resolution did not represent support "for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism":

CLINTON: This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

—J.K.

Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon

Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon


Helena Smith in New York
Wednesday June 11, 2003
The Guardian

Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.

In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much.

"It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."

In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:

·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;

·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and

·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.

Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."

Before he had even flown to Iraq to relaunch the sensitive weapons inspections after a four-year hiatus last November, senior US defence department officials were excoriating the septuagenarian as the worst possible choice for the post.

It was just the beginning. By autumn, the happily married father of two was being branded in Baghdad as a "homosexual who went to Washington every two weeks to pick up [his] instructions".

"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.

A lot of the sniping "surely came" from the Pentagon, said Mr Blix, who has since won plaudits for his handling of the unenviable brief of divining whether Iraq had disarmed.

Staff attached to the UN monitoring and inspection commission, headed by the Swede for the past three years, openly say there is no love lost between hawks in the Bush administration and their mission.

Mr Blix, a former foreign minister, prefers to remain sanguine. "By and large my relations with the US were good," he said, reiterating his belief that the Iraqi regime would likely never have complied with any of the UN resolutions around disarmament had it not been for the presence of 200,000 US troops in the region.

"But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us," he conceded, hoping the inspectors would employ more damning language in their reports to swing votes on the UN security council.

Washington, he claimed, was particularly upset that the UN team did not "make more" of the discovery of cluster bombs and drones in March.

He said Washington's disappointment at not getting UN backing for an attack was "one reason why you find scepticism towards inspectors".

The life-long civil servant -who is looking forward to returning to a shared life with his wife in Stockholm as he turns 75 - said he was convinced that "there are people in this administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things".

Instead of seeing the UN as a collective body of decision-making states, Washington now viewed it as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it. Such [negative] feelings don't exist in Europe where people say that the UN is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff."

That was especially worrying given President Bush's openly proclaimed belief in the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "It would be more desirable and more reasonable to ask for security council authority, especially at a time when communism no longer exists and you don't have automatic vetoes from Russia and China," he said.

Similarly it would be much more "credible" if a team of international inspectors were sent into Iraq instead of the 1,300-strong US-appointed group now conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said.