President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.
With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime....
...The approach of tough diplomacy backed by the threat of military action was the correct one and it yielded exactly the desired results, a unanimously passed U.N. resolution and the capitulation of Saddam when he readmitted the inspectors.
The betrayal occurred not when the president was given the tools he needed to secure international support for inspections, but rather when Bush refused to allow the inspectors to complete their work and decided preemptively to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.I like that Hillary Clinton takes positions and makes tough choices. Sometimes she will be wrong - though it's not at all clear to me she was wrong here, nor do I think Obama would have voted any differently if he were actually required to take action, instead of just talking about taking action.
I believe Hillary is the only candidate who is both willing and able to get us out of Iraq. Good intentions are nice, but if Obama is already wilting - how can we expect him to be able to stand up to Republicans if he can't even stand up to Hillary?
And I do sincerely believe that there is only one reason Obama is continuing to be forcibly propped up - when Clinton is obviously, yes obviously the better candidate. That reason is the civil war in the Democratic party (via Tennessee Guerilla Women)
No comments:
Post a Comment