posted on Jun, 12 2003 @ 02:09 AM
John bull 1
Not sure if you ever located the letter pre-determining the need to invade Iraq or whether it's been linked to elsewhere.
Anyway here's the 1998 letter to which you refer:
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
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
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