Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Explaining why Kerry would still vote for IWR, but not oust Hussein

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-04 07:28 PM
Original message
Explaining why Kerry would still vote for IWR, but not oust Hussein
Edited on Mon Sep-20-04 07:29 PM by jpgray
Jon Stewart quoted TR's 'speak softly and carry a big stick' to explain this, and noted that the Senate had given Bush the big stick, with the expectation that he would speak softly with it and not just immediately bash someone over the head with it. Congress didn't send troops to Iraq, Bush did.

Also, the 'big stick' was a necessary element in securing cooperation for the brief time the inspections were allowed to occur. Ask Scott Ritter how hard UNSCOM had to work for proof in the nineties in order to force Iraq to admit its chemical weapons producing capability. If you were examining the level of cooperation Saddam gave to the inspectors in the runup to this war, things like the Al Samoud missiles (which were questionably over range limits) only started to be turned over after the IWR was passed and the US had the ability to go to war. If the US had been earnestly in pursuit of a peaceful resolution, the IWR could have done real good despite its serious flaws. It could have altogether peacefully resolved the 'situation'.

Now, in real terms IWR was a bad vote, simply because everyone should have KNOWN that Bush was only asking for a big stick to use it, not to hold it and speak softly. However, as Bush can't very well respond with the argument 'well everyone knew I was going to war no matter what diplomacy had in store', it is an effective defense.

We gave Bush a big stick so he could speak softly, but instead he took the stick and bashed someone over the head with it. The decision to use the authorization for invasion was Bush's and Bush's alone--Congress had nothing to do with it. Since Kerry has consistently been of the view to consolidate international support, and to let the peaceful means (inspections) be exhausted, with the IWR passed and Kerry in office, the invasion truly would never have happened.

He is being utterly consistent here, but he is not expressing it clearly enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-04 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'll watch it go down once more (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC