<<"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
<<"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." ? President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
<<Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." ? Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting dates you refer to: Feb. 4, 1998; Feb. 17, 1998; Feb. 18, 1998.
Here's another date for you guys (plane and sirs): January 16, 1998.
<<On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[7]>>
(from the Wikipedia article on PNAC)
It should be plain by now, despite sirs' mockery (wherein I pin the whole thing on the "evil, moronic" Bush) that Bush is not so much the instigator as the front man for what is probably the most evil and dangerous cabal of fascists and militarists ever to insert themselves into the power structure of your country.
The pattern, of course, is plain and decades old, going back to the beginnings of the Korean and Viet Nam Wars. A cadre of fascist-minded Republicans goad the Democrats with charges of "softness" - - soft on communism then, soft on "terrorism" today, soft on whatever enemy will replace "terrorism" tomorrow. The Democrats, being the gutless cowards they are, hopefully react, to the enormous profit of certain vested interests, by plunging the country into yet another disastrous and unnecessary war.
The problem with the Clinton administration, however, was that Clinton was actually smarter than the fascists who were trying to goad him. He did not fall for their bullshit. However, he couldn't exactly ignore the "danger" or look like a "terrorist appeaser," so he did what he had to do - - he talked tough. He gave the morons of America something that they wanted to hear. What can I tell you? You gotta do what you gotta do. It's politics. Between going to war to appease his right-wing critics or uttering a few words to impress the morons of Mississippi, the Billster chose the lesser of the two evils.
