Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, et al Calls for Invasion of Iraq; As Far Back As 1997

Why Are We Where We Are Now?

I assume that you all have read these letters from Cheney, (Jeb) Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others of "The Project for the New American Century" before to Clinton and to Gingrich/Lott. (Following after this note) . They're dated from as far back as 1997 and 1998, before they took office and quite widely known by the likes of many of you. I realize I'm likely not telling you all something you do not already know. So my apologies, but gentle reminders of fact are important in present times. As Cheney has now told the public that the previous (Clinton) administration agreed with this administration's views, and that the war rationale was "An Al Qaida threat and WMD's" versus "Promoting freedom in Iraq (the current rationale)", the letters are very pertinent. I've not noticed any of these being cited by those who are now saying that Clinton agreed with their tactics, or that they later determined that it was necessary to go to war with Iraq AFTER the election. These letters read quite differently.

Since I assume you've read them, it's a gentle reminder that the war was planned (or at least forcefully pushed) by the group in the current Bush administration before they took office, and before Al Qaida attacked us. So this interesting reminder to us all of the push for war with Iraq which began long ago by the current group in the administration, as stated in these letters on their own web site, is sobering. The single-mindedness towards the Iraq goal, even now, regardless of Al Qaida attacks, is at least interesting.

Here (2nd letter that follows) are the letters from Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, to Clinton in 1998, urging him to go to war in Iraq, and to Lott and Gingrich, doing the same, and also telling Lott and Gingrich that Clinton had refused to follow their advice to go to war with Iraq. (Not exactly what Cheney is now stating.)

You can download the .pdf file on TPNAF's "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You can also get their "Statement of Purpose" on their web site, which I attached at the bottom here. It helps to keep the facts in good, chronological order. The group also talks of "politicizing" foreign affairs and the war in their campaign 2000 memo, though it is not thought generally acceptable at that point. I've excerpted letters to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich in 1998 about how we'll be welcomed in a war. You'll be amazed to see the signers of the letters and documents. Go to the websites if you wish to see the full letters. (DL)

read on below, or at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ or for specifics pre-2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm (letters below)

-----------------------------------
May 29, 1998

The Honorable Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501
The Honorable Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510-7010

Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing...We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice ... (Editor's note: Is this the part where Clinton agreed with the policy, as Cheney stated in his speech?)

In February, the Clinton Administration embraced the agreement reached between the UN Secretary Koffi Annan and the Iraqi government on February 23. (Oops. Maybe it was here that Clinton agreed with their call to war. Ed.)

In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged" by Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam ... (I'm SURE this is where he agreed with their policies...Ed.)

-- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
-- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves;

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime.

Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. (Editor's note: I wonder how they might feel about that tactic now?)

U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. (I'm sorry to editorialize again here, but this is 1998. Was it a surprise that we were finally going in 2003, no matter what?) We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily...To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

... the reality is that his (Saddam's) regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. (Ed. again - is this the part where flowers will be tossed at our soldiers' feet? What's currently being tossed at their feet packs a bit more punch and doesn't smell as sweet.)

Sincerely,

Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner
John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, ...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.

...we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam ... Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. ...experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. ...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.

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, ...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.

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. (now as in 1998 now or as in 2003 now? Ed.)

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. 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.

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

--------------------------------

June 3, 1997
The Project for the New American Century

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives ... have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power...Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power... The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.

Here are four consequences:
- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg

Francis Fukuyama

Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz