Reply #116: Because he wanted to give sanctions more time. [View All]

[karynnj]

GHWB "drew a line in the sand" and said that he would go to war if Saddam didn't withdraw by that date. This was after his ambassador had missignaled that the US would not intervene in an intra-arab fight. The Democrats wanted to use sanctions and negotiations to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This was not given a real chance, so it's impossible to know how this could have worked.

Because GHWB did:
-put together a big coalition
-got the Saudis and other arabs to pay for much of the war
-Most importantly, the war was quick, met the objective of getting Saddam out and few soldiers were killed

the first Gulf War is viewed a success.

The perspective of history may be more ambiguous. Gulf War Syndrome has meant the cost is far to the American military is greater. The resulting Iraq sanctions led to misery in Iraq, which increased anti-American sentiment in the ME. Among religious arabs, the resulting military base in Saudi Arabia angered them as well.

Kerry's 2 votes are consistent in that both push for international diplomacy. The alternative to the IWR, going to the UN and asking for inspectors (that they hoped Saddam would refuse to let in) was NOT peace. The Democrats who voted against it include many who felt the resolution didn't bind Bush enough - Kerry obviously agreed (he voted for the Levin amendment and others that failed), but may have felt it was the best they were likely to get and it was better than nothing. (He does now say that he was wrong to believe Bush would honor any promises. From Kerry, this is an extremely damning statement - he is saying Bush is dishonest and dishonorable - where truth, honor and integrity are values Kerry constantly speaks of - along with love and citizenship.)