Help sway an independent voter

I was trying to make a point to a coworker that there's a difference between the voting for the Iraq War Resolution and approving the invasion itself.

This guy is not a raving GOPer but only really knows the common themes from the MSM.

My understanding is that people voted for the IWR so that W would have credibility in negotiations with the UN and Iraq. You know, negotiating from a position of strength. The expectation was that W would exhaust all other avenues before invading - which is where he fell flat.

I'm having trouble finding documentation for it though. Was the expectation I mentioned about explicitly state by the Bush administration? Or by the GOP?

Does someone have some favorite links that document this expectation? Preferably from Ocy 2002 or earlier?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/11/20021107-2.html

I'm grateful to the members of the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, that came together to support the war against terror, and authorize, if need be, the use of force to disarm Iraq. We must bring the same spirit of bipartisan cooperation to the urgent task of protecting our country from the ongoing threat of terrorist attack.

Terry, listen, there's risk in all action we take. But the risk of inaction is not a choice, as far as I'm concerned. The inaction creates more risk than doing our duty to make the world more peaceful. And obviously, I weighed all the consequences about all the differences. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully -- don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that.

And war is not my first choice, don't -- it's my last choice. But nevertheless, it is a -- it is an option in order to make the world a more peaceful place.

... but it would be cool if statements like this could be found before the vote. Something that IWR supporters can point to and say "See? That's what I expected to be done when I voted for IWR"

Bush's statement made after the vote can give an indication of the general tone surrounding the IWR but it came too late to figure into the voting strategy.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary (my bold), to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable (my bold). The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

from that "liberal rhetoric" site -- the White House transcripts from October 7, 2002 -- President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Turns out Saddam was telling the truth and *was* in compliance, at least according to the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT via David Kay AND the UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS. Saddam Hussein told the truth regarding being in compliance with the sanctions, and was NOT in possession of "weapons of mass destruction" -- here is ONE of the MANY articles that have been published about that (and you can go read the actual reports on the government websites) --

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994

By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles. (Ida note: these were the ones destroyed, because they COULD HAVE BEEN five miles over, maybe)

Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

"You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors — and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not," he said. <end>

I wrote this last year, it's a pet peeve because "voted for the war" is how we lost the ability to challenge Bush on his lies and hold him accountable to adhere to the terms of the IWR and not attack unless he had truly exhausted all other avenues and that Iraq was proven to be truly a grave danger.

"Today, George Bush had the audacity to accuse Democrats and war critics of rewriting history, saying "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

But, again, the only one rewriting history, i.e. LYING, is George W. Bush. His own words, from the fall of 2002:

Sept 7, 2002

Its my honor to welcome the Prime Minister back to Camp David. I look forward to spending a good three hours talking to our friend about how to keep the peace.

Sept 10, 2002

"I'll make the case of how I think we ought to proceed, on how we work together to keep the peace."

Video

Sept 19, 2002

"I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace...If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about."

Video

Sept 23, 2002

"I believe we can achieve peace. Oh, I know the kids hear all the war rhetoric and tough talk, and that's necessary to send a message."

Video

Sept 27, 2002

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work... People who are willing to work with us to send a clear message to the world, a unified message, a strong resolution which defines our vision for peace... I want you to know that behind the rhetoric of war is a deep desire for peace."

Remarks

Sept 28, 2002

"I want to thank members of both political parties in the Congress for working on a strong statement of resolve that the world will see. Members of both political parties have worked together with the -- with members of my staff, to develop a statement that shows our determination and our desire to keep the peace<"

Remarks

Oct 7, 2002

"Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."