Good Luck
New member
Why is everyone so focussed on the idea of Saddam supplying chemical weapons to Al Queda? Since when is Al Queda the only terrorist organization over there? Most democrats agreed with Bush that the biggest threat of the ME is the advent of WMDs in the hands of terrorist groups. It was the ignorance of the media that kept harping on Al Queda. Saddam was known to provide support to international terrorists, most of whom were aimed at Israel. Considering Saddam had a history of using WMDs when he thought it to his advantage, it would not take a large leap of probability to imagine him eventually supplying his buddy terrorists (who did NOT include Al Queda, but DID include factions just as full of hatred for the U.S.) with a few tons of serin in binary liquid form.
That is what made Saddam and Iraq a significant threat. WHile it was a threat that could have - and should have - been handled with means other than a ground force invasion, it was a real threat, and is the reason the democrats were on board with doing something about it.
However, the claim that many of those who voted "yea" on the force authorization didn't know they were voting for a ground war is simplistically naive. They knew full well what they were voting for because the available alternate uses of force (missile and/or bombing campaigns, etc.) did not NEED any type of congressional approval. They knew that. Anyone who has a miniscule glimmering of knowledge about the federal government knows that. Bush could have bombed Bagdad to a smoking ruin of overlapping craters while congress sat around discussing oil prices. But instead Bush asked for authorization to use force. There is only ONE kind of force the president goes to congress for: the deployment of ground troops to engage in combat operations on foreign soil. Therefore, ANYONE who voted in favor of the measure, no matter how they "qualified" their vote with fuzzy rhetoric to please their constituency, knew full well what it was they were voting for, and knew full well it would be used.
Yes, a majority of democrats voted against the measure. But enough voted FOR it (including the last presidential candidate, AND more than one of the last democratic primary candidates) to make it a bi-partisan fuck up.
That is what made Saddam and Iraq a significant threat. WHile it was a threat that could have - and should have - been handled with means other than a ground force invasion, it was a real threat, and is the reason the democrats were on board with doing something about it.
However, the claim that many of those who voted "yea" on the force authorization didn't know they were voting for a ground war is simplistically naive. They knew full well what they were voting for because the available alternate uses of force (missile and/or bombing campaigns, etc.) did not NEED any type of congressional approval. They knew that. Anyone who has a miniscule glimmering of knowledge about the federal government knows that. Bush could have bombed Bagdad to a smoking ruin of overlapping craters while congress sat around discussing oil prices. But instead Bush asked for authorization to use force. There is only ONE kind of force the president goes to congress for: the deployment of ground troops to engage in combat operations on foreign soil. Therefore, ANYONE who voted in favor of the measure, no matter how they "qualified" their vote with fuzzy rhetoric to please their constituency, knew full well what it was they were voting for, and knew full well it would be used.
Yes, a majority of democrats voted against the measure. But enough voted FOR it (including the last presidential candidate, AND more than one of the last democratic primary candidates) to make it a bi-partisan fuck up.
Last edited:
