How would YOU have voted on the IWR? [View All]

[Ravy]

I was watching a YouTube video today about an Oregon Science Professor who was explaining Global Warming as a matter of risk. I am sure many of you have seen it.

Basically the video was talking about the price of inaction versus the price of action.

A good portion of the comments we hear today about IWR go like this("You could *tell* Colin Powell was uncomfortable in his presentation to the UN", "The Weapons Inspectors hadn't found anything", "Hans Blix said it was a mistake", "Joe Wilson told us there was no uranium purchase"). All are correct, but all are *after* the IWR vote. The IWR vote was what put the inspectors back into Iraq.

The NIE at the time said that Saddam was continuing to manufacture WMD. There may have been some contradictory evidence *at the time of the vote* that some of the Congress may or may not have been privy to. The full extent of Bush's dishonesty and disdain for all things constitutional was not known in the degree that it is now.

So, the situation is that we want the Security Council to act. We think that Saddam has WMD. It is barely a year since we were attacked. We urge the Security Council to put in inspectors, and if Saddam is not cooperative, we are prepared to make him cooperate militarily.

The risk of inaction *at that point in time* is another attack on US soil. The cost of action is that if Saddam is in violation of the UN Sanctions concerning WMD, we will have to act militarily.

If Saddam did not have WMD, there should be little to no additional military cost (we were already doing fly-overs).

So, over many Democratic objections, the force resolution was placed in the bill to let the Security Council, the world, and particularly Iraq, know that we mean business.

The bill comes to the floor and you have to vote Yes, or No.

To tell you the truth, I probably would have voted Yes. The risk of a No vote was the possible loss of a great many lives.

I would only have voted No if I was convinced that Saddam Hussein had no WMD. I don't think anyone at the time really thought that. I remember that a big topic at the time was that if US Troops invaded, they would cause those WMDs to be used against us-- so for *everyone* saying that they were so against the war because Saddam didn't have WMD, there is a bit of DU-revision going on there.

I think the IWR YES vote was the correct one to make, at the time. I don't think many suspected that Bush would pull the inspectors out and start bombing while they hadn't found anything and were asking for more time. Saddam was not only attempting to comply with the UN Resolutions, but also allowed US reconnaissance flights in addition to those. And, he was talking to other countries about giving up power and going into exile. I can't think of anyone who would be so callous with the lives of our troops to go ahead and invade given those facts. But, there he is... Bush in the flesh. May he rot in Hell.

Bush wanted the war. Even, realistically speaking, if the IWR had not passed, knowing now what we didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq without it.

I know this post will a) sink to the bottom or b) be covered with lots of "I would have voted NO". But I ask you to honestly think, would you really have risked another attack on US soil?