Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The reason we're still fighting a pitched battle over the IWR: Revisionist History [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Did Leahy believe Saddam had WMD?
Did he say this:
<...>
But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.
In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.
We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.
And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.
But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war
But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.
In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.
We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.
And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.
But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?
http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war
I notice you left this question hanging:
Did he believe Bush's lie?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024597642#post66
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The reason we're still fighting a pitched battle over the IWR: Revisionist History [View all]
cali
Mar 2014
OP
Ironically, better politics would've been listening to people who knew what they were talking about
Hippo_Tron
Mar 2014
#76
Jeez Pro. Sorry I asked you a question that you thought was a gotcha question.
neverforget
Mar 2014
#60
You didn't know. Guessing right on a 50-50 Boolean proposition doesn't mean 'you knew' nt
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#77
WMD was a really stupid term used by Bush to conflate chemical/biological and nuclear weapons
Hippo_Tron
Mar 2014
#73
You've highlighted the problem with the OP and those who agree with her. Revisionist history. They
stevenleser
Mar 2014
#78
it reminds me of Iran-Contra: when Steadman Fagoth said 10,000 Miskito had been
MisterP
Mar 2014
#38
They made a calculated bet that Iraq War II would go as smoothly as Iraq War I. How wrong they were!
reformist2
Mar 2014
#39
You and I and millions of others weren't fooled but the defense for falling for the neocon
neverforget
Mar 2014
#64