February 08, 2004

Reader's Corner

Just in case you missed this over chez Glenn, reader Daniel Aronstein writes in:

"Here's incontrovertible PROOF that the Democrats in Congress KNEW AT THE TIME THEY VOTED FOR THE WAR RESOLUTION that Bush NEVER claimed that Saddam presented an imminent threat, and that whether or not he had stockpiles was irrelevant:

I got this proof from the following link - which is a contemporaneous news story titled:

"Senate approves Iraq war resolution Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)"

in which CNN quoted the two leaders of the Democratic Party in each body, Daschle and Gephardt as CLEARLY stating that imminence, and/or alleged stockpiles had nothing to do with their SUPPORT for the bills:

"... Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

'I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.'... "

"... Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs

"...may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.' ..."

In light of this fact - that Democratic Party leaders knew that the War resolution DID NOT DEPEND ON SADDAM HAVING WEAPONS STOCKPILED or that he therefore represented an imminent threat - (even though that was alleged) - and that only condition - AS SPELLED OUT IN THE RESOLUTIONS (HR RES # 114 and SEN # 46) - that they placed on the President to use force, was whether Saddam failed to comply with all the relevant U.N.S.C. resolutions - RESOLUTIONS WHICH THE BILLS EXPLICITLY AND CORRECTLY STATED WERE THE CONDITIONS FOR HALTING WAR IN 1991, AND WHICH PUT THE ONUS ON SADDAM TO PROVE HE HAD DISARMED AND HAD STOPPED ANY AND ALL WMD ACTIVITY (see UNSCR #687). Resolutions that he violated, according to David Kay - in sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week.To retroactively claim that Bush alleged that either imminence or stockpiles were central to arguments for Saddam's compliance or for war is patently false, absolutely untrue, and a total fabrication."

Cogent, no?

Posted by Gregory at February 8, 2004 11:49 PM
Comments
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Always Thoughtful"
--Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
Columnists
Think Tanks
Security
Books
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by