U.S. launches strike against Iraq; House postpones impeachment vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON – President Clinton ordered a “strong, sustained series of airstrikes” against Iraq yesterday in response to Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors. U.S. and British forces unleashed a punishing volley of missiles.
The attack, which began without warning, was designed to cripple Iraq’s ability to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Clinton said in a nationally televised address from the Oval Office.
In Baghdad, witnesses said two missiles hit the capital after midnight Iraqi time, one near one of President Saddam Hussein’s biggest palaces.
“Operation Desert Fox,” as the Pentagon dubbed the assault, was intended to last up to four days and involved American and British aircraft and U.S. warships. The Pentagon announced that extra aircraft and ground troops were being sent to the area.
In Washington, House Repub-licans agreed yesterday evening to a brief delay in impeachment proceedings against Clinton because of airstrikes in Iraq, even though many questioned whether the attacks were politically motivated.
Republican lawmakers said they expected a delay of a few days at most in the historic debate that had been set to begin today.
“We’re not going to put off this impeachment matter indefinitely,” said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, one of several lawmakers who stopped to talk with reporters after a closed-door meeting.
“I anticipate we’ll take it up over the weekend or early next week,” added Chabot. He and other Republicans said no firm date had been set.
Clinton’s prospects for avoiding impeachment flickered ominously during the day, as a fresh batch of Republicans announced plans to support at least one of the four articles of impeachment the House Judiciary Committee approved last week. Among them was Rep. John Porter, R-Ill., who had previously declared his intention to oppose impeachment.
There was GOP skepticism all around about Clinton’s motives in ordering airstrikes, though.
“Suddenly, on the eve of a vote to impeach him, after six years of a weak approach to Saddam Hussein, we are now told bombing is an urgent necessity,” Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., said.
Clinton said he acted “to protect the national interest of the United States” and Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East. He gave the go-ahead after consulting with his top advisers and reviewing a U.N. report that said Saddam had again failed to fulfill its obligations to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.
“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said. “I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”
Clinton cautioned that unintended Iraqi casualties were a certainty.
Staunch allies such as Germany and Canada offered quick support for the joint U.S.-British attack, while China angrily condemned the airstrikes and France said it deplored “the grave human consequences that they could have for the Iraqi population.”
The French Foreign Ministry added, however, that it also “regrets that Iraqi leaders were unable to show proof of the spirit of complete cooperation” demanded by the Feb. 23 memorandum of understanding signed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Iraq’s Tariq Aziz.
China’s U.N. Ambassador Qin Huasen was visibly angry when he emerged from an emergency meeting of the Security Council after being informed of the attack.
Speaking to reporters, Sandy Berger, the president’s national security adviser, said there was nothing the Iraqis could say or do now to blunt or abort the attack. “I think we will conduct and complete the mission as planned.”
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the attacks were not designed to “get Saddam Hussein.” But she said the United States would step up its contacts with opposition groups and “work with them in a sustained way.”
In the charged political atmosphere of the day, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., criticized the military action even before Clinton announced it.
“While I have been assured by administration officials that there is no connection with the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” his statement said.
“Both the timing and the policy are subject to question,” he said in a statement.
Asked about Lott’s criticism, Defense Secretary William Cohen, himself a former Republican senator, said: “I am prepared to place 30 years of public service on the line to say the only factor that was important in this decision was what was in the American people’s best interests.”
dailyprincetonian.com |
