Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces
to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . .
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programs
and its military capacity to threaten its
neighbors . . .

[Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein must not be
allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world
with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological
weapons . . .

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced
that he would no longer cooperate with the
United Nations weapons inspectors called
UNSCOM . . .

Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's
capability to retain, create and use weapons of
mass destruction . . . Other countries possess
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles. With Saddam, there is one big
difference: He has used them. Not once, but
repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons
against Iranian troops during a decade-long
war. Not only against soldiers, but against
civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not
only against a foreign enemy, but even against
his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in
Northern Iraq . . .

Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use
these terrible weapons again . . .

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in
late October, we built intensive diplomatic
pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming
military force in the region. The U.N. Security
Council voted 15 to 0 to condemn Saddam's
actions and to demand that he immediately
come into compliance . . .

When Saddam still failed to comply, we
prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the
last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It
pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I
quote, a clear and unconditional decision to
resume cooperation with the weapons
inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our
airplanes already in the air because Saddam
had given in to our demands . . .

I made it very clear at that time what
unconditional cooperation meant, based on
existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own
commitments. And along with Prime Minister
[Tony] Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally
clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully,
we would be prepared to act without delay,
diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N.
weapons inspectors have carried out their plan
for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing
period ended this weekend, and last night,
UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported
the results to U.N. Secretary-General [Kofi]
Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and
profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq
has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has
placed new restrictions on the inspectors.

Here are some of the particulars:

n Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from
inspecting suspect sites . . .

n Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability
to obtain necessary evidence. For example,
Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph
bombs related to its chemical weapons
program.

n It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological
weapons team from videotaping a site and
photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi
personnel from answering UNSCOM's
questions.

n Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq
actually emptied out the building, removing not
just documents but even the furniture and the
equipment . . .

So Iraq has abused its final chance . . .

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam,
Saddam has disarmed the inspectors . . .

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq
would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons
inspection system and get away with it, he
would conclude that the international community
- led by the United States - has simply lost its
will. He will surmise that he has free rein to
rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday
- make no mistake - he will use it again as he
has in the past.

Third, in halting our airstrikes in November, I
gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn
our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S.
power as a check against Saddam will be
destroyed . . .

That is why . . . I have ordered a strong,
sustained series of airstrikes against Iraq . . .

We acted today because, in the judgment of my
military advisers, a swift response would
provide the most surprise and the least
opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days
from Chairman Butler's report, we would have
given Saddam more time to disperse his forces
and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan
begins this weekend. For us to initiate military
action during Ramadan would be profoundly
offensive to the Muslim world . . .

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam
remains in power, he threatens the well-being of
his people, the peace of his region, the security
of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all
is with a new Iraqi government . . .

The decision to use force is never cost-free.
Whenever American forces are placed in
harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while
our strikes are focused on Iraq's military
capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi
casualties . . .

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to
respond, we will face a far greater threat in the
future. Saddam will strike again at his
neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons
of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and
he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that
we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue.
Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of
peace may have thought that the serious
debate currently before the House of
Representatives would distract Americans or
weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven
that although we are never eager to use force,
when we must act in America's vital interests,
we will do so . . .

-- Midknight - 12/17/98