LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 836
0 members and 836 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-15-2004, 08:39 PM   #11
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,532
More Flipper

Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Do you believe that there was a possibility that Bush would have said "OK, no WMDs, Iraq must stay disarmed, but we can bring our boys home"?
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.

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.
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.