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.
Japan and Germany were homogenous countries.
What we are trying to do in Iraq is a MULTI-ethnic, DEMOCRACY. To have a democracy is difficult--to have a multi-ethnic democracy in the context of the kind of history Iraq has faced is nearly insurmountable.
What Buckley is saying is that if we're not willing to engage in the kind of war that we deployed against Germany and Japan, then we should consider some alternatives. Because the way we're doing it now will not get us to win. Bottom-line.
Funny how 'conservatives' claim a desire to leave the UN behind. But when it suits their needs (i.e. gives them an excuse to attack a 'belligerent' nation), we need to enforce UN resolutions...
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;
The 'meeting' that supposedly happened in Eastern Europe was deemed to be a falsehood. The ties were tenable at best. Even the Vice President has admitted to this. The ties excuse was dropped early in the war
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;
Yes, where are those weapons? Oh, I forgot. World Nut Daily and DEBKA tell us they're in the Syrian deserts...
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;
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.Perhaps those hacks in Congress may want to read this before passing another 'resolution' for regime change. It was none of our businessShe is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... --John Quincy Adams, 1821
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.
Indeed it is and history tells us exactly what form of govenment they will institute. A monarchy (doubtful as they have no royalty), a military dictatorship (which our nation had no problem with while they used and supported Iraq against Iran in the 1980s), or a theocracy.
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.
Again while tragic, I would refer you to Adams' statement.
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.
Let's see. Communism around for a total of 70-80 years at that time, Islam around for 1000-1100 years. Nope, I see no problem whatsoever overcoming that mindset, they'll just give it right up when they see how great democracy is. Why it'll probably happen practically overnight!! While you're at it you can explain how all but less than one handful of Islamic nations haven't embraced democracy. Turkey has been going at it for 80 years and perhaps only their close proximity to Europe has kept them from sliding back to their Islamic roots. When will 'conservatives' wake up to the realization that it is not our business to determine the level of freedom or the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?