Movatterモバイル変換

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq

Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff andPentagon staff:

Please be seated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President, for your remarks andyour leadership. Thank you, Secretary Cohen, for the superb job youhave done here at the Pentagon and on this most recent verydifficult problem. Thank you, General Shelton, for being the rightperson at the right time.

Thank you, General Ralston, and the members of the joint chiefs,General Zinni, Secretary Albright, Secretary Slater, DCIA Tenet,Mr. Bowles, Mr. Berger, Senator Robb thank you for being hereand Congressman Skelton. Thank you very much, and for your years ofservice to America and your passionate patriotism both of you.And to the members of our armed forces and others who work here toprotect our national security.

I have just received a very fine briefing from our militaryleadership on the status of our forces in the Persian Gulf. BeforeI left the Pentagon, I wanted to talk to you and all those whom yourepresent the men and women of our military. You, your friendsand your colleagues are on the front lines of this crisis in Iraq.

I want you, and I want the American people, to hear directlyfrom me what is at stake for America in the Persian Gulf, what weare doing to protect the peace, the security, the freedom wecherish, why we have taken the position we have taken.

I was thinking as I sat up here on the platform, of the sloganthat the first lady gave me for her project on the millennium,which was, remembering the past and imagining the future.

Now, for that project, that means preserving the Star SpangledBanner and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution andthe Bill of Rights, and it means making an unprecedented commitmentto medical research and to get the best of the new technology. Butthat's not a bad slogan for us when we deal with more sober, moredifficult, more dangerous matters.

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, Iwould argue, are living only in the moment. They have neitherremembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meetingthe threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security inthe new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpowerconfrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securingfor more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have cometo take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chippingaway at the barriers economic, political and social that oncekept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in thisroom know very well that this is not a time free from peril,especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and anunholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organizedinternational criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21stcentury. They feed on the free flow of information and technology.They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people,information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to buildarsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and themissiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than SaddamHussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, thestability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past howdid this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect thenational interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-lovingpeople in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War,the United Nations demanded not the United States the UnitedNations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear,chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them,to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trainedinternational experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq madegood on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist thatIraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he hadused it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran,he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians,against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against SaudiArabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at theend of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the pastdecade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider justsome of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons thatit had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM wouldthen uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraqwould simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four timeswithin just 14 months and it has submitted six different biologicalwarfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chieforganizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defectedto Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weaponsand missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers ofweapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, ithad vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted onceSaddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfarecapability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causesbotulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scudwarheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq hasactually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happenedto his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back toIraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents haveundermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors,lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spiritedevidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectorswalked through the front door. And our people were there observingit and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done aremarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilizedworld have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of massdestruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons,and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped toproduce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer torooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam hasundertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors anddeclaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits,including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acreslarge by comparison, when you hear all this business aboutpresidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to comeinto a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'llhave some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington,D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicatepersonal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the wholehistory of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remainsof his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, themissiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to producethem.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles ofchemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-typemissiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its productionprogram and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. Itis against that background that we have repeatedly andunambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.

The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked inthe face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle afterobstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks ofcivilized people throughout the world.

It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find adiplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised todo at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been donewithin 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end ofthe Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that isby far our preference.

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glossesover the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include ormeet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access tothese sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution ordiminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOMhas put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence ofwhat he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council,many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them,force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evadehis obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he andhe alone will be to blame for the consequences.

I ask all of you to remember the record here what he promisedto do within 15 days of the end of the Gulf War, what he repeatedlyrefused to do, what we found out in 1995, what the inspectors havedone against all odds. We have no business agreeing to anyresolution of this that does not include free, unfettered access tothe remaining sites by people who have integrity and provenconfidence in the inspection business. That should be our standard.That's what UNSCOM has done, and that's why I have been fightingfor it so hard. And that's why the United States should insist uponit.

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, andwe fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which giveshim yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons ofmass destruction and continue to press for the release of thesanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that hemade?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lostits will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do moreto rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal.And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for anylength of time believes that, too.

Now we have spent several weeks building up our forces in theGulf, and building a coalition of like-minded nations. Our forceposture would not be possible without the support of Saudi Arabia,Kuwait, Bahrain, the GCC states and Turkey. Other friends andallies have agreed to provide forces, bases or logistical support,including the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and Portugal, Denmarkand the Netherlands, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic,Argentina, Iceland, Australia and New Zealand and our friends andneighbors in Canada.

That list is growing, not because anyone wants military action,but because there are people in this world who believe the UnitedNations resolutions should mean something, because they understandwhat UNSCOM has achieved, because they remember the past, andbecause they can imagine what the future will be depending on whatwe do now.

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose isclear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq'sweapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reducehis capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just receivedfrom our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective andsecure our vital strategic interests.

Let me be clear: A military operation cannot destroy all theweapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can and will leave himsignificantly worse off than he is now in terms of the ability tothreaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors.

And he will know that the international community continues tohave a will to act if and when he threatens again. Following anystrike, we will carefully monitor Iraq's activities with all themeans at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of massdestruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.

The economic sanctions will remain in place until Saddamcomplies fully with all U.N. resolutions.

Consider this already these sanctions have denied him $110billion. Imagine how much stronger his armed forces would be today,how many more weapons of mass destruction operations he would havehidden around the country if he had been able to spend even a smallfraction of that amount for a military rebuilding.

We will continue to enforce a no-fly zone from the southernsuburbs of Baghdad to the Kuwait border and in northern Iraq,making it more difficult for Iraq to walk over Kuwait again orthreaten the Kurds in the north.

Now, let me say to all of you here as all of you know theweightiest decision any president ever has to make is to send ourtroops into harm's way. And force can never be the first answer.But sometimes, it's the only answer.

You are the best prepared, best equipped, best trained fightingforce in the world. And should it prove necessary for me toexercise the option of force, your commanders will do everythingthey can to protect the safety of all the men and women under theircommand.

No military action, however, is risk-free. I know that thepeople we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American peoplehave to be ready as well.

Dealing with Saddam Hussein requires constant vigilance. We haveseen that constant vigilance pays off. But it requires constantvigilance. Since the Gulf War, we have pushed back every timeSaddam has posed a threat.

When Baghdad plotted to assassinate former President Bush, westruck hard at Iraq's intelligence headquarters.

When Saddam threatened another invasion by amassing his troopsin Kuwait along the Kuwaiti border in 1994, we immediately deployedour troops, our ships, our planes, and Saddam backed down.

When Saddam forcefully occupied Irbil in northern Iraq, webroadened our control over Iraq's skies by extending the no-flyzone.

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weaponsinspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in everyconceivable way, but the discipline, determination,year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing thejob. And we seek to finish the job. Let there be no doubt, we areprepared to act.

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply byletting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made asolemn commitment to the international community to do that and togive up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. Oneway or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good onhis own promise.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20thcentury and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In thiscentury, we learned through harsh experience that the only answerto aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action.

In the next century, the community of nations may see more andmore the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state withweapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them toterrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel theworld among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who wouldfollow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by theknowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of aclear message from the United Nations Security Council and clearevidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

But if we act as one, we can safeguard our interests and send aclear message to every would-be tyrant and terrorist that theinternational community does have the wisdom and the will and theway to protect peace and security in a new era. That is the futureI ask you all to imagine. That is the future I ask our allies toimagine.

If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act asone together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find adiplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chanceto do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

Tuesday February 17, 1998

•Sen. Boxer Launches Re-Election Campaign
•Clinton's Lawyer Moves To Dismiss Jones' Lawsuit
•Fox, Ex-Clinton Aide Appear Before Grand Jury
•GOP Hopefuls Visit New Hampshire, Iowa
•White House Scandal At A Glance

Transcript:
•Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq