Skip to main content

http://www.iraqwatch.org/gover.../Legislation/ILA.htm

quote:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.


H.R.4655
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))



Bill Summary & Status for the 105th Congress

H.R.4655
Public Law: 105-338 (10/31/98)
SPONSOR: Rep Gilman (introduced 09/29/98)

RELATED BILLS: S.2525

STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status
House Actions

Sep 29, 98:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

Oct 2, 98:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

Oct 2, 98:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.

Oct 5, 98:
Called up by House under suspension of the rules.
Considered by House as unfinished business.
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).

Senate Actions

Oct 6, 98:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Oct 7, 98:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Oct 8, 98:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.

Executive Actions

Oct 7, 98:
Cleared for White House.
Oct 20, 98:
Presented to President.
Oct 31, 98:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
Signed by President.


Somehow, I missed this. Clinton did it before Bush did it, and I am glad.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Senate Democrats voted 29-21 to authorize the invasion of Iraq too, so no one should pretend like there isn't plenty of blame to go around. Democratic primary voters certainly remembered that in 2008, and it probably made enough of a difference to cost Hillary Clinton the nomination. Bush was still the guy in charge and had the final decision, though, so obviously he has the most responsibility for that decision.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
The invasion was to contain the WMD's....but that didnt work out so its to spread democracy and do some nation building in the Middle East....which is still an unknown 8 years on, so lets say it was to get the 9/11 terrorists, except they all came from Saudi Arabi....darn.

May be it was for the oil


.


As US oil companies got a small fraction of the overall business from Iraq, I guess it wasn't the oil, either. Next guess!
We have known without any doubt that Iran and the NORKs have long range ballistic missiles, and access to nukes, or in the case of the NORKs, the ability to produce and test nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, we're in Iraq dinking around the country in HMMWVs waiting to be blown up by roadside bombs constructed in Iran. There must be some other valid reason for the current strategery.
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
We have known without any doubt that Iran and the NORKs have long range ballistic missiles, and access to nukes, or in the case of the NORKs, the ability to produce and test nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, we're in Iraq dinking around the country in HMMWVs waiting to be blown up by roadside bombs constructed in Iran. There must be some other valid reason for the current strategery.


Yes, it's called unwillingness on the part of the world's leaders to do anything about the most serious dangers. You would be one of the first to cry if anyone decided to bomb Iran or NK.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×