I'd like to respond to
space's comment, but the
other thread is unweidly and I think this deserves its own space.
The original comment is as follows:
Others have mentioned bits of this, but I'll pull it together.
1. Clinton was conducting similar bombing on a smaller scale. If this is the "smoking gun" then Clinton is guilt of war crimes as well, even if his smoking gun is of a smaller caliber.
2. Congress almost certainly knew about this, including Democrats. Maybe John Conyers was in the dark, but until I see some evidence that not even those on the Armed Services and Intelligence committes had any inkling of this, it is absurd to call this a "smoking gun" of anything. If Joe Biden didn't care, that's an indictment of Joe Biden not an impeachable offense by Bush.
3. Iraq's sovereignty was Iraq's problem. Unless I'm mistaken, Iraq wasn't making much of a peep about its country being bombed (aside from the general complaints about the enforcement of the No-Fly zones). If someone can point me to a single instance where Iraq essentially said "Hey, wait a second! This isn't defensive bombing of radar facilities. This is offensive attacking without provocation." I'd be interested in seeing it.
4. The rolling start. It may be true that Congress had not yet authorized an attack, but the President anticipated the potential for one. Leaving aside Bush's illigitimate grounds for invasion, if a president legitimately believes that another country poses an imminent threat and legitimately believes that an invasion may be imminent and legitimately believes that Congress will authorize force, that president may legitimately conduct preparatory military operations. If this was Wes Clark we were talking about, nobody here would be criticizing the rolling start strategy. But since it is Bush, there is a lot of knee-jerk criticism.
Bush deserves to be criticized. For lying. For failing to plan. For failing to care. But getting hysterical about softening up Iraq, which, let's be fair, 99% of the country wouldn't give a crap about if the war was legitimate, only makes Dems look ridiculous.
And here we go...
(1) Clinton did NOT conduct similar bombing. The bombing conducted by the Bush adminstration was essentially unprovoked (susequent self-defense by Iraq aside). Clinton's bombing was not an offense as Bush's was; it was defensive.
Specifically,
Washington -- More than 100 coalition aircraft participated in the January 13 air strike against Iraqi fixed air-defense and mobile missiles sites in southern Iraq, says U.S. Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar. Hoar, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, told a press briefing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, that the mission was prompted by Iraq's rebuff of a January 6 demarche by Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States to remove its surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites from below the 32nd parallel and to stop violating the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.
The strike that he agreed with as president in 1993 was one in response to the assasination plot of then President Bush.
Moreover, Clinton's campaign was to enforce the no-fly zone under UN resolution 687, which does have an enforcement provision. Bush's bombing campaign, as the Times reported, was not supportable by any UN resolution.
Also, let's compare numbers. Missles launched under Clinton to enforce no fly zone: 44. Missles launched under Bush in violation of no fly zone: over 21,000. Just until May 2002.
(2) That's quite a broad claim to say that "Congess must have known about this." Congress gets what it filtered to it through the executive branch and its agencies. I don't believe, unless someone can correct me, Congress as a whole is informed of every military action, let alone ones taken on the sly. Furthermore, sift through the DoD reports from 2002. Notice how almost every report begins " In response to recent hostile Iraqi acts against Coalition aircraft monitoring the Southern No-Fly Zone..." or "Iraqi Air Defenses today fired upon..." Assuming that Congress WAS informed of the events in Iraq in 2002, it looks like that information was presented in such a way as to make Congress believe that the US was in a defensive, rather then offensive, posture.
(3) Here is evidence of Iraqi contesting the US bombing campaign in 2002:
On May 16, 2002, the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations presented a letter to the Secretary General showing US encroachments into its sovereign territory:
Iraqi Government 16 May 2002-- On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter dated 15 May 2002 from Mr. Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq. Appended to the Minister's letter is a table showing the violations of Iraq's international boundaries that were committed by United States and British warplanes flying across the demilitarized zone monitored by the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) in the period from 6 April and 3 May 2002.
Also, a follow up letter was presented to the United Nations on May 27, 2002:
27 May 2002-- On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a letter dated 27 May 2002 from Mr. Naji Sabri, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq. The Minister calls attention to the ongoing wanton aggression against Iraq by United States and British aircraft in the unlawful no-flight zones and to the fact that in the period from 16 April to 16 May 2002 they carried out 844 armed sorties, 52 of them from Saudi Arabia, 656 from Kuwait and 136 from Turkey, as shown in the statement enclosed with the letter. On 19 April and 1 May 2002, United States and British aircraft bombed civilian and military sites in Ninawa Governorate, killing one citizen and wounding five others and damaging a number of civilian and military installations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/index_05.html
I'd link to the FULL letters, but the site has been scrubbed, and the letters are not available anywhere else. We at DSM.com are trying to see where we may obtain official copies. Thanks to sheba below, who found them through the UN Document Search Site. (My groggy mind couldn't find them through the main UN site...posted too early in the AM, me thinks)
(4) Your statement presumed that Bush "legitimately" believed Iraq was an "imminent threat". The DSM specifically states that Iraq's WMD capabilities "was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Reading Bush's speech, you would swear that he genuinely did believe Iraq was about to come busting over here in NY and Chicago and LA with biological and WMD attacks. However, looking at all the Downing Street documents which detail meetings with Bush's closest war advisors, it is clear that the Bush administration did NOT believe Iraq was an "imminent" threat; rather, the documents show that Iraq was not a threat to the US, but the US and Britain decided to play it up that war.
Given that the President knew that Iraq did not pose a direct and imminent threat, does that not make his offensive--without Congressional authorization--that much more disturbing?
I think space's comment brought up some good points, and I hope I cleared some things up addressing them.
Sorry to post and run, but I have to get going. I'll be glad to address any other questions or research needs when I get back :)