General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Looks like we have a progressive challenger for Dianne Feinstein in CA [View all]Expecting Rain
(811 posts)President Bush an authorization of force resolution to show Saddam Hussein the had a stark choice if he continued to evade required UN inspections.
Voting for the resolution provided leverage and was the right action for a US Senator to have taken in the moment IMO. It was the pro-diplomacy position. And one taken to avoid war.
Enabling Saddam by undercutting President Bush by voting no, would have given aid and comfort to a guy responsible for the deaths of millions in a war he started with Iran, a guy who raped and looted Kuwait, and a guy with a record of using nerve gas against both Persians and his own Kurdish population.
Not dealing with Saddam wasn't a pro-peace position, it would have been appeasement IMO, and the force resolution was a pressure tactic that people like Feinstein hoped would avoid a war.
So she did what those with high-levels of foreign policy do. It was the correct move in the moment in my estimation.