Originally posted by: Craig234
I'll point out that a lot of Democrats hated that Kerry voted for the Iraq war
Wrong. Kerry voted for a law that allowed Bush to use the threat of force to get Saddam to agree to inspections, and to use force ONLY if Saddam refused. It worked - Saddam allowed the inspections. Bush broke the agreement and ordered the inspectors out of Iraq three months before the inspections were expected to complete, and started the war.
Too many Americans have been given a phony story.
Check out the title of the resolution
"AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002"
What you are saying is revisionist history by Democrats who are trying to appeal to their base, ala "I voted for the war before I voted against it"
Notice it does not say authorization for the use of military force IF Saddam does not do x x and x.
After this was passed we went before the UN and got yet ANOTHER resolution (1441) against Saddam, I believe it was number 11, and despite calling for "immediate cooperation" this is what Has Blix said when he issued his report.
"It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive,
these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues. "
Given yet another chance to play along Saddam delayed and because of that Bush attacked.
hmmm Let's read what Hillary said when she voted for the use of military force....
Reasons for the war
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
and
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
Wow even then everyone thought Saddam and al-Qaeda were connected, and no one talked about Saddam having anything to do with 9-11.
On why we don't need the UN
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.... But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act
It's not a pre-emptive war, but a war to hold Saddam responsible for the actions he failed to take.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
and finally, the best part
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Wow even Hillary says it was not a rush to war, guess back to the drawing board with that argument guys.
Hillary's speech
Facebook
Twitter