Ravy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Feb-21-08 10:56 PM
Original message

Hillary's Chance

It is time for Hillary to address the IWR vote. At this point, I do not think she can win the election without doing so.

First of all, I do *not* feel she should apologize, and those of you that think that if she does, she will gain votes should just click on another thread right now, because you are not going to like what I have to say.

John McCain will blast Obama for his IWR stand. The Republicans have not suddenly forgotten how to hit someone hard, perhaps unfairly, on what the average DUer considers a strength of the candidate.

Hillary needs to bring everyone back to the time of the IWR vote. I am not sure there was *anyone* on earth, even Saddam Hussein, that *KNEW* for certain whether he had WMD or not. Those that thought they knew he did certainly had the information on their side. We know he had them, we know that we (the United States) sold and gave him the technology to produce them, because we thought he would use them against Iran.

I am sure there are people who wondered if he really had WMD left, but I don't think anyone could definitely say he absolutely didn't have any left. It is hard to prove a negative.

So, I think Hillary should remind everyone that in the most benign instance, you could say he *might* have WMD. The cocksure administration was positive, and even the most skeptical among us could honestly say "I am not sure".

Hillary needs to remind us of the frustrations in the years after the first Gulf War, which were not going particularly well. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens died to the sanctions imposed by the UN. Saddam was regularly targeting our planes that were enforcing the no-fly zone, we were striking threats along the no-fly zone, and he was using force against the Kurds to the north and the Shiites to the south.

It was not a good situation, and a more dangerous situation to remain in the days following the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not a good place for unaccounted for WMDs to be for the security of our forces in the middle east or for the safety of our many interests overseas and at home.

So, I think the country, at the time, was unwilling to take the chance. I think that is entirely understandable, and a large majority of the people at the time agreed.

Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out in 1997, only to let them back in under the threat of more sanctions in 1998, but did not allow them full access so the UN finally removed them and we bombed the places he would not let them look.

Things sat like that for four years.

The IWR was another chance at diplomacy, forcing Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back in under the threat of US force if he did not comply fully, and let them inspect everywhere they wanted.

The IWR worked for 4 months or so. Weapons inspectors were there, they destroyed some missiles (not WMD) that were just slightly out-of-spec, and Saddam let them. Later before the invasion, Saddam was even actively looking for a place to exile himself to, under the threat of invasion.

The conditions of the IWR passed the Security Council by a vote of 10-0.

Then, after the IWR vote, after the Security Council vote, Bush started showing his hand.

The administration was not using diplomacy as it should have. It started making extra demands (regime change among them), setting deadlines for the weapons inspectors to finish their work. U-2 overflights (which Saddam agreed to).

The Bush administration started losing support among the Security Council, and losing world opinion. When France said they would not support Bush's time line for the invasion (again, well after the IWR vote) they were vilified. Freedom Fries, indeed. For asking us to hold off an additional six weeks or so to let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs.

Bush invaded, against the assurances he had given to Congress and to other world leaders. Democrats did not start the armed aggression. Bush did. Hillary didn't. Bush did.

So what was Obama doing? Obama wanted to leave Saddam alone. He was unwilling to use even the THREAT of force to put an end to the sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. He was unwilling to use the THREAT of force to ensure that there were no unaccounted for WMD in that volatile area of the world that may have had the most remote chance of being used against us and our interests. At least, that is how he will be painted.

Hillary, John Edwards, John Kerry and many others of our strong party leaders did not want to preserve the status quo when it came to Iraq post 9/11. They wanted change to a policy that was not in the best interest of the United States, or the innocent Iraqis that the sanctions were killing. None of them would have slept when diplomacy was in order, nor would they have invaded without evidence of WMD.

I know it is long. I know it is winding. I am sure Hillary has the talent to condense it down and make people understand... if she will tackle it. If she does make people understand, I think she has a better than average chance of winning this election. Ignoring it, to date, has been her downfall.

And for those of you still reading that think she should apologize for her vote. To require an apology from her means you think she wanted to start a war with Iraq. It is clear to me that she didn't, but if I thought she *did*, an apology would never be enough for me.