Planned Regime change back in 1998?

[coloradodem2005]

I got this email from a friend who I told about Paul O'Niel outing Bush on Iraq. He sent me this. I am just curious. If Clinton signed it, why did he not do this? He still was president for two years longer at that point. THis is a little foggy to me. We have been debating Clinton's stance on Iraq and how far the WMD's report went. Is there any light that one could shed on this. What would be the reason. Did PNAC or the neocons have anything to do with this?

What he sent me:

HR 4655, "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998":

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.


Signed into law on October 31, 1998, by our good friend former president William Jefferson Clinton. For that matter the bill itself had widely bipartisan, and was passed with overwhelming support.

Relevant links:
http://www.meij.or.jp/text/Gulf%20War/hr4655.pdf
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/0919cngr.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It was rammed though

by the Neo Cons, PNAC has been pressuring for this since '92

That is the truth.

[Beearewhyain]

2. Big difference...Not a declaration of war

If I remember correctly this was largely a symbolic piece of legislation that was supposed to encourage internal dissent in Iraq. Like when George I said that he would help rebels in Iraq after Gulf War I , however they might have done it that time. It would be sort of like us supporting the rebels in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded. The big point is that it was not a decision to involve a major military force.

[Guaranteed]

3. I know that PNAC sent a letter to Clinton requesting that he invade Iraq

dated Jan 26th, 1998: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It's pretty damned clear that O'Neill is telling the truth here.