Were you in favor of sending weapons inspectors into Iraq?

[WilliamPitt]

If so, you were in favor of the threat of force needed to back the inspectors.

Period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=604705&mesg_id=604733&page=

[dogman]

1. Yes

Yes again.

[DaveinMD]

2. of course

that's why all this handwringing about Kerry's position is ludicrous. He did the right thing.

[JohnLocke]

3. Yes

He's failed to win the argument because no-one is clear what precisely the argument is.
Last year it was regime change.
Then it was the war against terrorism.
Then it was disarmament.
Then it was the moral case.
And then last week President Bush went all the way back to the beginning again and said it was about regime change.
If the US and UK can't agree a justification among themselves, how on earth do they expect the rest of the world to support a war in Iraq?
What the rest of the world DOES support is the inspection process.
And the inspection process is starting to work.
On February 14, Hans Blix reported increased co-operation from Iraq.
On Friday, Dr. Blix reported further progress.
On the question of interviewing scientists he said "Iraq has provided the names of many persons."
On the question of alleged mobile production units for biological weapons he said: "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."
On the question of destroying the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, he said: "The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed."
On the question of chemical weapons, he said: "There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty."
On the question of time, he said: "It would not take years, nor weeks, but months."
So if the process can take months - why did the UK Government put down a deadline of 10 days?
-- John Swinney
http://www.snp.org/html/news/newsdetail.php?newsID=1036

[Q]

4. Don't quite understand your question...

...the inspectors WERE in Iraq. They were pulled out so that Bush* could begin the 'shock and awe'.

- Ah...the old 'threat of force' rationale. Bush* ordered troops toward Iraq so it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. He knew that the 'patrotic' congress would follow through once he committed troops in the field. It's the oldest ploy in the book.

[blm]

6. The IWR put the inspectors in.

Bush didn't let them finish their job.

The IWR is not to blame for Bush going to war. BUSH failed to implement it honestly. IMO, people who blame the IWR and those who voted for the IWR instead of Bush not honestly implementing it are letting Bush off the hook.

[Snoggera]

5. yes and question mark

I think many have forgotten that Iraq was a beaten and segmented country for over a decade. The threat of force was unnecessary. It had already been applied in various ways for many, many years. That is why the "war" was so tragic. Not only was the world lied to regarding the reasons for the war, but thousands and THOUSANDS of civilian Iraqi's died for no reason.

Weapons inspectors were needed in many countries. The focus was on Iraq because the US wanted the focus to be on Iraq.

Hell. Even his airplanes were buried under the ground.

What a RAH RAH war! Let's kill a couple thousand Iraqi troops for the hell of it, and while we're at it, let's kill 10 or 20 or 30 THOUSAND innocent civilians.

It's now the American Way.

[salib]

8. And to continue that thought

What exactly did we accomplish with force or the threat of more force that * is always "credited" with? We had already used as much "force" on Iraq, its government, and yes its leader (Saddam, we of course know him on a first name basis). And how did he, they, it, respond? The same way as they had: No weapons of mass destruction left, no threat to anyone, we are a sovereign nation, we should be able to live our lives, etc.

So, what does one mean by the need to back it up with force. The U.S.A. is nothing if not "backed up by force." No need to be explicit. It is obvious and odious.

[clydefrand]

7. Yes, War isn't the answer to every damn crisis that comes

about in this world. We are supposed to have evolved and learned from our mistakes of the past.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Yes, I was in favor.

And the inspections were working....that's why Bush couldn't allow them to conclude there was no WMD. He wouldn't be able to justify the PNAC invasion to rescue the oil. Does anyone really believe that they would have invaded Iraq if WMD were a real threat?

[Monte Carlo]

10. Saddam did not let the inspectors in because of his good nature...

... he let the weapon inspectors in because it was made very expensive and risky for him not to.

[David Zephyr]

11. The French Wanted to Further Increase the Number of Inspectors.

I always felt that two to three hundred inspectors on the ground with a central U.N. post there in Baghdad, coupled with the no-fly zone would have been more than enough to satisfy both the paranoids in the West and the paranoids within Iraq.

Saddam Hussein had as much as agreed to this last minute proposition by the French, William.

So, one have been in favor of more inspectors without being in favor of a military invasion of Iraq. One does not necessitate the other.

Kerry's vote for the IWR was, unlike many other Senators, prefaced during his speaking in the Senate, with a lot of provisions. He did not approve of Bush invading Iraq, but I still do not approve of his voting to authorize Bush (a man that was obvious itching to pull the trigger) to make war.

To me, John Kerry's answer today to Bush's insipid questioning of Kerry's vote for the IWR was the best one: "Why did you rush to war?"

And to those who feel self-rightous in attacking William, you should do your homework. William, like a strong minority of us in the U.S., was as active as anyone here at the DU in opposition to the War (in spite of his loyal support to Kerry). In fact, William and a small handful were passing out fliers and challenging the build-up to the War right in Harvard Square in Cambridge.

And to my knowledge, Mr. Pitt has the unique place in American history of having co-authored the ONLY published book before the invasion that actually said that WMD were unlikely to be found in Iraq. He can retire on that milestone alone.

[oasis]

12. Yes and yes.

[tinanator]

13. only if they were going in as preemptive assassins

so they could do whats right, right?

[Jefferson_Clinton]

14. BUT

"If so, you were in favor of the threat of force needed to back the inspectors."

Bush pulled out the inspectors

Saddam was the one who allowed them to enter

I don't see your logic

[Zomby Woof]

15. I wanted to send them Ivory soap

But Saddam was more of a Lava man. Who knew? :shrug:

[sampsonblk]

16. 100%

That would be in compliance with the UN Charter, other international law, other treaties that we've signed and the wishes of our most important allies.

That was the way to go. But Bush didn't want that.

[Zomby Woof]

17. next up at 11PM eastern!

"Should Ralph Nader be blamed for the 2000 Election outcome?"

My current favorite is the thread where Zell Miller aborts Michael Jackson's love child "Kobe Jr." and wraps the protoplasm in the Palestinian flag. What flames! :o

[eridani]

18. So, why couldn't the threat of force have come from Congress?

That's where it's supposed to come from, sez the Constitution. There was no reason, none at all, for Congress to turn this power over to Bush, period.

[sandnsea]

19. The IWR, for chrissake

That's what it does, Congress passed it. The President carries out the policies passed by Congress. The IWR included diplomacy and war only if diplomacy failed and there was a threat to the US. The President is the Commander in Chief. The President always, always, always decides when, where and how to deploy troops. When Congress declared war in 1941, Roosevelt executed the war. That's how it works.

[sampsonblk]

20. You are re-stating erdani's point

Why did Congress pass and IWR giving Bush the power to decide to invade Iraq at the time and manner of his choosing.

The Congress did not do that for FDR. They TOLD him that we are at war with Japan. That is not the same as saying if you feel like fighting Japan, go ahead. The GO or NO GO vote should come from Congress. They should not pass it to anyone - including Bush - as they did in 2002.

[eridani]

21. Thanks! Beat me to it. n/t

[sandnsea]

22. You're wrong

FDR was authorized and directed to carry on war. The time and place and manner of the deployment of those troops was up to FDR. If circumstances had changed between December 1941 and June 1944 (D-Day), nobody would have expected FDR to continue with a war just because Congress had voted yes.

"the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

[sampsonblk]

27. If the IWR was identical to the WWII declaration...

we would not be having this discussion. But, sadly it was not.

It was a cop out. A blank check for Bush, who had already decided what he was going to do. The Congress didn't declare that we are going to wage war against Iraq, the Congress declared that Bush "is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate..."

http://themoderntribune.com/war_against_iraq_-_joint_resolution_-_us_congress_-_use_of_military_force_against_iraq.htm

[Sparkly]

29. Actually, the War Powers resolution of 1973 did that.

The IWR didn't give him powers he didn't already have.

[sampsonblk]

30. How far are we going with this?

Are we to debate the War Powers Act?

Someone at the White House felt they needed explicit congressional authorization in order to pull this off. The War Powers Act is fine for emergencies, but does not explicitly state that a president can engage this country in a war of choice any times he feels the need. Maybe he legally could have. Maybe not. But politically someone (Rove?) felt it was smart to get that congressional approval in hand, or else it might be politically impossible to invade Iraq.

John Kerry stepped up to the plate and helped them.

[TexasSissy]

23. Trick question. Assumes a threat of force BY THE U.S. was needed

to back the inspectors. That's a false statement.

Yes, there had to be some threat waiting in the wings. But the threat was already there: the U.S. pushing the Security Council for an international vote of war.

[DinahMoeHum]

24. Yes- with emphasis on "THREAT of force needed to back up..."

not USE of force - that's putting the cart before the horse.

:evilfrown:

[WyLoochka]

25. Yes, with ALL the time

they needed. I loathe Gephardt and Lieberman for back-stabbing Biden, almost as much as I loathe Cheney etal.

Had BushCo been required to operate under Biden-Lugar, which would have made them come back to Congress to justify their bloodlust for Saddam with real, concrete proof of WMDs and real, concrete proof that the Security Council was wrong - we would NOT have invaded - they would NOT have had the votes.

woulda' shoulda' coulda' - I know. But I just want to remind everyone of just how guilty Gephardt and Lieberman are for this bloody mess. Without their help in killing Biden-Lugar, BushCO could NOT have pulled the invasion off.

[kodi]

26. yes, under UN supervision and UN sanctioned use of force.

which is what most of people expected to happen. but once bush was given to keys to the armory he did whatever he wanted.

in this robert byrd was smarter than the rest of the senate combined.

[THUNDER HANDS]

28. no

I mean, what, something suddenly changed over the last 10 years I needed to know about?

Saddam couldn't travel to the Northern or Southern parts of his own country. He was a threat to his political rivals, that's all.

That said, I still get why Kerry voted the way he did. Ultimately, who cares, it's still old news and we have to move forward and that means getting him into the White House.

[Classical_Liberal]

31. That might make sense if the resolution REQUIRED

that weapons inspectors be sent and the Bush make his decision pending their finding. The resolution required no such thing. It just asked Bush to do it, which is why Bush didn't. Anyone with common sense should know Bush would take advantage of such a blank cheque.

Furthermore, Kerry is digging himself in by saying he would give Bush a blank cheque even knowing that Bush is a fucking liar.