Remember... or ELSE!
Putting All This Terrorism Business Back Into a Historically Accurate Perspective


{“Well this looks like a job for me…now everybody just follow me; cause everyone needs a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me” -Marshall Mathers}

Well, this looks like a job for The Political Sage! I guess it is in my destiny to be the one who reminds the public about a few historical facts. Apparently, some very important details in history have slipped the minds of too many Americans. It is so typical of the American media to exclude relevant, past events from present dramas. Well, personally folks, I am sick and tired of defending a President who is merely pressing on in the campaign against terror. The problem of Terrorism is so old news, people. The only difference with the current situation is our current American President, you see. It looks like the battle against terrorism was only meant to be battled by those who have political backbones.

The only unfortunate revelation about our current President is that he just happened to be President on September 11, 2001. What happened to that American unity and forthrightness that existed at around He was bound to be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” President Bush has taken this old battle against terrorism by renewing rigorously and aggressively fighting terrorism.
Already, the common American calamity of amnesia has set in. And the Party that was not in power on 9/11/01 has somehow twisted those tragic events into partisan diversions that attempt to boost their own political image. I’m telling you that is much more disgraceful and corrupt than any of the crazy accusations that have been aimed at this President and his Administration.

Oh, and I haven’t forgotten about all of you conspiracy advocates! This article is also dedicated to you. You may want to include these forgotten, yet documented, historical episodes into your conspiracy theories. Hey maybe Michael Moore should put out a 2nd edition of his 911 documentary, which includes some other examples of terror-related squabbles and verbal battle words from previous Presidents. And I wish that the conspiracy theorists would at least think about considering the relevance in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, the Bojinka Plot, the 1998 US Embassy Bombings, the Millennium Bomb Plots, the 2000 USS Cole Bombing and all the countless Foreign Intelligence Warnings that occurred. If you argue that the 911, 2001 tragedy was made up; then why not enhance your argument with all the other pre-911 tragedies?? At least, then it might result in a slightly more balanced display of conspiratorial propaganda. You can use my references and ideas Michael! All’s I ask in return of you Mr. Moore is that I at least get a shot out in your revised movie! That’s T-r-a-c-y P-h-e-r-n-e-t-t-o-n, T-h-e P-o-l-i-t-i-c-a-l S-a-g-e.

No matter how Americans view the present media arrangement of this current battle against terror; the truth remains; President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John Ashcroft, and all the other officials that are made to look like evil antagonists are just plain inaccurate illustrations of reality. Besides, it exposes to any intelligent person just how much American and World history has been forgotten by the main stream media and the Left. We are all aware that George W. Bush majored in History, right? Just checking.
The Liberals and the mainstream media (oops that was rather oxymoronic of me, I meant; the Liberal Mainstream Media) have been making President Bush and his Administration the scapegoats for the sake of fabricating the Liberalistic partisan fairytale. Liberals love to erase historical facts and replace them with present distractions, consisting of blame, aggressive smearing tactics and personal pot shots.

No more, I say. I DEMAND that America take a breath, relax and review what is truly in front of them. And this goes for all of you spineless congressmen that still call yourselves “Republicans,” but are obviously lacking Conservative backbones. This ones’ for you, too ex-compadres. Each and everyone you need to take a moment of silence breathe and stop falling prey to the present charade of Liberal/media deceptions.

The rest of this article is dedicated to the facts; nothing more. I have inserted one particular documented report from the not so distant past. I have chosen to include the document, in its’ entirety simply because I do realize the lazy tendencies of those who just rely on, as Rush would call, “the drive-by media,” to formulate your opinions. You are not getting off that easy, this time! No measly links as references that can give you an option whether or not to click on it, to further your knowledge…Uh-uh. This is The Political Sage, and in my world; accuracy comes in full written expulsion. Then it’s much harder for you to argue. However, a Liberal will always have an argument, even after the truth is laid out for them. Their argument, however will just be downgraded to smearing tactics and be a barrage of personal, immature attacks. That’s ok, that is expected.

Enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Wednesday, December 16, 1998 (CNN)

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S: O.k. will let you have one link to choose to either ignore or see for yourself. I realize that this whole 1998 transcript from Bill Clinton was probably hard on some of you. Take it easy, there will be more to come……
For complete pre-911, 911 and post 911 timeline, go to: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org

© Tracy Phernetton 2007