Bob
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Robert Wrubel wrote:
>
> > And why do we persist in calling this a "neocon"
> > policy, when the Democrats have also signed on to
> it?
>
> We've been through this before, and you never know,
> but I doubt the
> U.S. would have invaded Iraq had Gore been
> president. Sanctions would
> have continued, no doubt, but war seemed a fixation
> of a particular
> group around PNAC.
>
> Remember this? Signers' names sound familiar?
>
> Doug
>
>
<http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm>
>
> 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.
>
> We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end
> the threat of
> weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its
> allies, you will
> be acting in the most fundamental national security
> interests of the
> country. If we accept a course of weakness and
> drift, we put our
> interests and our future at risk.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J.
> Bennett
>
> Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
>
> Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
>
> William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
>
> Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin
> Weber
>
> Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B.
> Zoellick
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>