Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;And for close to two years, Republicans harped on WMDs with very few words on democracy. That was the reason. How many would have been behind 'regime change' in Iraq simply for 'freeing' the Iraqi people? There was a supposed threat, which didn't exist.Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in 'material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President 'to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations' (Public Law 105-235);
Pure conjecture on your part and ill-informed at that
Ah, yes. And you would know how? You yourself stated you had never been to Iraq. It's not ill-informed, it's based on historical data of past regimes within the region, unlike Victor David Hansen's delusional rantings. Buckley is right again, as he usually is. Within a generation, Iraq may not be a theocracy. But I can guarantee you it will no longer be a democracy, no matter how many Republicans close their eyes and wish it to be.
It was not "the" reason. In any event, concerns over Iraq's WMD program preceeded Bush 43. You just have to read the statements from both parties in Congress and Clinton preceeding our attack on Iraq in 1998. You forget Secretary Cohen going on the talk shows with a bag of flour to demonstrate what a similar quantity of anthrax would do or the Cohen, Berger, and Albright presentation in Columbus about the dangers Saddam presented.
You left out some other relevant paragraphs from the Joint Resolution:
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President 'to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Ah, yes. And you would know how? You yourself stated you had never been to Iraq. It's not ill-informed, it's based on historical data of past regimes within the region, unlike Victor David Hansen's delusional rantings. Buckley is right again, as he usually is. Within a generation, Iraq may not be a theocracy. But I can guarantee you it will no longer be a democracy, no matter how many Republicans close their eyes and wish it to be.
You are the one making sweeping generalizations and pronouncements. At least I have lived in the area for seven years and can speak from personal experience and knowledge. If history is such a guide and preordains the future, how do you explain a democratic Japan? I believe in free will and the ability to change. Nations need not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Buckley is wrong and so are you. I don't know what Iraq will be like in the future. Ultimately it is up to them. We are giving them the opportunity to make those decisions by the elimination of a tyrant who killed over 300,000 people and buried them in mass graves. I remain optimistic that given a choice, most people will choose freedom and democracy, which is the wave of the future. I also lived for two years in Communist Poland, including during martial law in the early 1980s. I returned in the late 1990s and saw the remarkable changes that have been wrought. None of us in early 1980s would have ever predicted such a transformation a scant decade later.
Funny how even the way you presented your "WMDs were the reason" evidence makes it obvious that there were other paragraphs. You know, ones which didn't relate to WMDs. 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th for example. Those don't count?
How many would have been behind 'regime change' in Iraq simply for 'freeing' the Iraqi people?
I would've. I guess you're saying you wouldn't've. Ok then.
The relevant point is that majorities in Congress voted for the War Powers resolution. I don't know and you don't know what all of their exact reasons were for doing so. For all you know, maybe they did vote War Powers because they thought getting rid of a terror-aiding, brutal dictator was a worthy enough goal by itself, regardless of "WMDs". You don't know otherwise. It's on their list of reasons, isn't it? (The "Whereas" paragraphs...)