Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I believe it would have been politically impossible to begin a war if the inspectors were given clear and unobstructed access and allowed to do their job. Over a ten year period, however, they were never allowed to.
|
I'm clear on the ten year period, thanks. It just seems strange to hear all of these other justifications for the war now that we haven't found WMDs, but those same justifications for the war would not have been politically sufficient to justify going in if the inspections had told us there were no WMDs before the war.
Quote:
Responding to Ty: Sure--he could vote "no" on the resolution if he thought it bad, or insufficiently limited. He didn't. And I don't recall a contemporaneous explanation that his vote was between two bad choices, where a middle ground would have been better. Or he could have introduced an amendment, such as: authorization for war after a six-month (e.g.) period for continued inspections. Did he? Given SH's history, and frutrated inspections being one of Bush's clear issues (unlike conversion to baptism) as compared to the UN (give 'em one more chance), Congress might well have considered a specific limitation on this issue.
Post hoc rationalization is pretty sorry. He jumped on the bandwagon and now wishes he didn't.
|
I did look up the text of the
Congressional reso. I found this bit interesting:
Quote:
PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
|
This seems like a congressional limitation to me. Why couldn't a congressperson argue with a straight face that the admin could have relied on further peaceful means to enforce the UN resos without jeopardizing our safety, and therefore what Bush did with the authority was not what was meant when they voted on it?
