Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone
You might REMEMBER that Clinton signed several antiterrorism acts including The Iraqi Liberation Act. Maybe you should read that again and REMEMBER that it states, in part, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
|
The Iraqi Liberation Act http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...lation/ILA.htm
the bill
passed the House 360-38 and on 10/7/98 passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
funny you should mention The Iraqi Liberation Act stoner. this was the bill that so frightened Saddam, he kicked out the UN weapons inspectors shortly after it passed. it allocated a whopping 97 million dollars in military assistance, out of which the I.N.C. received less than 1 million dollars. this was clearly a case of Clinton paying lip service rather than his more accustomed position on the receiving end. so what happens when a
Republican President actually
does what this bill supports? well, we all know the answer to that.