# With friends like McDermott and Bonior, the Democrats don't need any enemies. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2002, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663 "2002-09-25T20:06:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/81 "2002-10-04T20:16:45Z")
I think, given the Republicans’ over-the-top reaction to McDermott and Bonoir’s visit to Iraq, this could go either way. The Dem’s rhetoric is a bit over the top, but to my mind many of the Republicans are showing their true partisan colors in their response. Though there are several examples of poor judgment in their rhetoric, **Trent Lott** took the cake for me, as I saw him on television deriding McDermott. [“He should come home and keep his mouth shut,”](http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0240/news-berger.shtml) I witnessed him say. Um, excuse me? This is how you treat an elected official of the United States? Trying to shut down the debate, are we? Where’s the “civility and respect” Bush was prattling on about last week? You show respect to someone by suggesting the “keep their mouth shut”? I think not. It is possible that the Democrat’s visit to Iraq will reflect poorly on the party… that remains to be seen. Among liberal circles, the visit is an example of doing what is right, nd is really showing quite well. I happen to agree with this interpretation. However, the Republicans are digging their own grave in their responses to it. Lott’s statement alone reminds me of everything I dislike about extreme conservatism. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/82 "2002-10-05T02:11:26Z")
**Debaser** said > [@](#): > > If the UN can step in, using the forces of all or many of it’s members to remove Saddam from power, then this would be a good thing, yes? Some civilians might die. The world and certainly region would be a more stable place. The suffering of the Iraqi people would be ended. WOMD production in Iraq would be destoyed. _One more democracy and one less dictatorship on the planet_. ::snort:: So, if we get rid of Saddam, democracy rushes in, eh? Right. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/83 "2002-10-05T20:43:37Z")
> [@](#): > > EVEN BEFORE the Baghdad boys left Iraq, media outlets throughout the Middle East gleefully highlighted divisions in the U.S. government and the travels by the “antiwar” congressmen. The Iraq Daily, for example, published by Saddam’s Ministry of Information, printed daily updates of the trip and posted them in English on their website. > > For example, a September 30 report says, “the members of the U.S. Congress delegation has underlined that this visit aims to get acquainted with the truth of Iraq’s people sufferings due to ongoing embargo which caused shortage in food and medicine for all Iraqi people.” (That article appeared next to a report on Saddam’s continuing financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers or, to use the paper’s formulation, “intrepid Palestinian uprising martyrs.” Also in that issue is an article by American white supremacist Matthew Hale, “Truth About 9-11: How Jewish Manipulation Killed Thousands.”) > > Two days earlier, on September 28, the Iraq Daily carried this report: The “U.S. Congress delegation saw a woman supplicating to Almighty God to revenge from criminal Bush and U.S. administration for the criminal crimes he and his administration perpetrated against Iraqi children through preventing them from the simplest life necessities due to the continuation of the unjust sanctions on Iraq.” > > On September 27, viewers of Iraqi Satellite Channel Television learned the following (this translation comes from U.S. government sources): > > “Three U.S. Congressmen arrived in Baghdad this morning on a visit lasting several days. The delegation will hold several meetings with Iraqi officials and members of the Foreign Relations Committee at the National Assembly. They will also visit hospitals to see the suffering caused by the unjust embargo and the shortage of medicines and medical supplies. Congressman Jim McDermott told reporters upon arrival at Saddam International Airport that the delegation members reject the policy of aggression dominating the U.S. administration.” > > The video then showed McDermott talking, with a voiceover translation in Arabic. Here is what Arabic-speaking audiences heard from McDermott: > > “We are three veterans of the Vietnam War who came over here because we don’t want war. We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression. We will visit children’s hospitals to see the negative impact of the sanctions imposed on Iraq. We hope that peace will prevail throughout the world.” > > So how does it feel to be used as a propaganda tool against your own country? McDermott, who was asked that question by CNN’s Jane Arraf when he was still in Baghdad, said it feels fine. “If being used means that we’re highlighting the suffering of Iraqi children, or any children, then, yes, we don’t mind being used.” [http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/737zcgnk.asp](http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/737zcgnk.asp) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/84 "2002-10-05T20:49:56Z")
_The Weekly Standard!_ Well, that certainly settles that! Boy, when you can come up with a clear-eyed, unvarnished source like that, a veritable paragon of non-partisan… (Whereupon your respondent, unable to restrain his mirth any longer, proceeds to roll about on the floor in spasms and " 'owls, 'owls of derisive laughter, Bruce!") ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/85 "2002-10-06T02:01:03Z")
So, **december** , the Iraqis are using the Democrat’s visit for propaganda. And that’s news?!?! They are also using Bush’s war rhetoric for propaganda. And, Castro has gotten 40 years of propaganda out of U.S. policy toward Cuba! If these leaders didn’t have the U.S. to blame everything on, their governments might conceivably even have collapsed under the weight of their own domestic problems long ago! ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/86 "2002-10-06T02:05:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*_The Weekly Standard!_ Well, that certainly settles that! Boy, when you can come up with a clear-eyed, unvarnished source like that, a veritable paragon of non-partisan… > > (Whereupon your respondent, unable to restrain his mirth any longer, proceeds to roll about on the floor in spasms and " 'owls, 'owls of derisive laughter, Bruce!") \*\* Not that I am arguing that TWS is a unbiased source (they lean towards the truth, it seems to me), but aren’t you the one who points to ‘mediawhores’ or something like that for cites? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/87 "2002-10-06T02:44:51Z")
I direct attention to mediawhores (God bless 'em!) as a source for links. I don’t direct your attention to them for thier editorial stance, they serve as a clearing house. More than that, I get my links by way of BuzzFlash, Cursor, and [TomPaine.com](http://TomPaine.com), all of whom are gleefully cooperative in directing my attention to various right wing screwball commentary, frequently at the aforementioned _Weekly Standard_, which seems to be the best of a bad lot. Whole step above _American Spectator_ (Of _Clinton’s Love Baby Bat Boy Area 51_ fame). Way down from the _Pravda_ of the Right, _Rat Race Journal_. **december** posted an utterly predicatable editorial from an utterly impeachable source. The writing is shade better than his own, mayhap, but still innocent of relevent facts. Who gives a rats ass what propaganda use the Iraqi’s make of the visit? Would it give the Iraqi’s the impression that America is not wholly united? Well, that happens to be true. Did it give them the impression that not all Americans crave war? So much the better because it’s true. But they are also witness to what must be an astonishment: that a country exists such as we, where congressmen are actually elected, and can fly to a foreign country and openly display thier disagreement with the No. 1 guy, and fly back, entirely unmolested, save for overwrought rhetoric. So much the better. Because it is true. ---
**Author:** ![Koxinga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/4af34b/32.png) [@Koxinga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Koxinga)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/88 "2002-10-07T13:52:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Who gives a rats ass what propaganda use the Iraqi’s make of the visit? Would it give the Iraqi’s the impression that America is not wholly united? Well, that happens to be true. Did it give them the impression that not all Americans crave war? So much the better because it’s true. Well, I guess that Tokyo Rose, Jane Fonda, and Lord Haw Haw all stand vindicated then. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/89 "2002-10-07T19:03:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*_(large snip of “My partisan sources are above reproach because I agree with them, and yours are beneath contempt because I do not”)_ > > Who gives a rats ass what propaganda use the Iraqi’s make of the visit? Would it give the Iraqi’s the impression that America is not wholly united? Well, that happens to be true. Did it give them the impression that not all Americans crave war? So much the better because it’s true. > \*\* Did you actually read what the Weekly Standard said was the offical translation of what Bonior et al. said? > [@](#): > > We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression. From which I glean that B&M claimed that - Iraq was a peace-loving country - Action to enforce the inspections of Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction is “aggression”. Either they really said these things, in which case they are preaching moral idiocy, or they were mistranslated for propaganda purposes, in which case they were dupes. If they have not repudiated the lies spread in their names by Saddam et al., they become both moral idiots **and** dupes, in a rare double bid for the Ramsey Clark Hall of Fame for the Liberally Stupid. In neither case does the truth have much to do with the ways in which Iraq is putting their little junket to use. That this doesn’t bother the hard Left of the Democratic party conveys far more information to the electorate of the nation as a whole than perhaps the Democrats care to think about. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Tradnor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cab0a1/32.png) [@Tradnor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tradnor)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/90 "2002-10-08T05:41:39Z")
Congressman Jim McDermott is now back in Washington, DC, and gave a brief interview to KING television in Seattle immediately following Bush’s speech tonight. I couldn’t find any reports on it, so the following is my own transcript: > [@](#): > > **Anchor:** > Congressman, you have opposed U.S. military action. You’ve questioned the president’s sincerity in Iraq. Did anything you just heard change your mind? > > **McDermott:** > Nothing, Jean. This speech started out from the top with things that I believe are deceptive. That is, he said a flat, declarative sentence that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction; there is no proof of that. He said there’s a tie to al-Qaeda; there is no proof of that, the CIA says that. He says that they’ve harbored al-Qaeda and so forth. Once again, he is not making a case and the United States Congress, under the Constitution, has the responsibility to declare war. What the president is asking for, he says, “Well we might not use it, I just want it in my pocket.” Well never mind having it in your pocket. When the time comes that you prove that Saddam Hussein has not followed what the United Nations is trying to do though Mr. Blix, then we will give it to you. There is no need to pass a resolution now for him to put in his pocket and decide when he thinks diplomacy is gone. That is giving away the power of the people to declare war that was guaranteed in the Constitution. > > **Anchor:** > So Congressman, you’re saying that despite the list that the president presented, and despite the record of 11 years of broken U.N. resolutions, we still don’t have a smoking gun to act on. > > **McDermott:** > Well, we do have thousands and thousands of inspections that were done. We have tons of gas that was blown up. The biological weapons he talks about, when those were produced they are good for three years and then they decay. They have no effect. So something that was made 11 years ago is not useful. It’s gone. So you have the Atomic Energy Commission, the International Atomic Energy Agency, about to declare that this country is clean and go on monitoring. That’s part of the reason why they pulled out the inspectors. They did not want a clean bill of health to come out, because if it had, they would have had to lift the sanctions, and the Bush Administration, and the Clinton Administration, were trying to break Saddam Hussein. They thought he would fold in six months. And he didn’t. > > **Anchor:** > Sir, very quickly, do you think we will go to war with Iraq? > > **McDermott:** > I think that the problem here is that once we’ve given the president this, he will continue to provoke Saddam Hussein and the United Nations into some way or other resisting, or seeming to resist. He will use that as a pretext to act alone, with or without the United Nations, breaking our committment to the United Nations. I expect that-- He’s building troops right now. They are preparing for war. And they will have enough troops on the ground in December that they can go in January, and if we pass this resolution, I think it’s a very high probability we’ll be at war in January. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/91 "2002-10-08T06:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > > From which I glean that B&M claimed that > > - Iraq was a peace-loving country > - Action to enforce the inspections of Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction is “aggression”. It’s at shame you flunked reading comprehension. What you ‘glean’ exists only in your imagination. Let’s try again looking at what is actually said shall we? > [@](#): > > We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. Or in other words. **If** you are peace loving, we will not wish to wage war on you. This is a statement of our conditions for war, (and quite good ones, I think). It says nothing at all about whether or not he believes that the country is in fact peace loving. This would probably be considered a veiled threat. > [@](#): > > As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression. to which you respond > [@](#): > > Action to enforce the inspections of Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction is “aggression”. Which is begging the question. Action to enforce inspections would by definition not be agression. On the other hand, you imply that diplomatic efforts would not be ‘action to enforce inspections’. Which is nonsense, of course. War is ‘action’ and everthing else is inaction? what a odd worldview. Diplomacy is making progress, (hence the word ‘continue’). So war at this time would be agression precisely because it would not be an “action to enforce inspections”, but rather an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation in violation of international law. It can only be action to enforce inspections if the UN authorizes it. Last I checked, that hasn’t happened. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/92 "2002-10-08T11:02:21Z")
> [@](#): > > ## It’s at shame you flunked reading comprehension. What you ‘glean’ exists only in your imagination. Let’s try again looking at what is actually said shall we? quote: > > ## We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. > > Or in other words. If you are peace loving, we will not wish to wage war on you. This is a statement of our conditions for war, (and quite good ones, I think). It says nothing at all about whether or not he believes that the country is in fact peace loving. **Tejota** , if someone responded to this post by writing, _“I don’t like responding to poorly reasoned posts,”_ wouldn’t you think that response implied that your post was _poorly reasoned_? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/93 "2002-10-08T11:47:45Z")
Your post was poorly reasoned. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/94 "2002-10-08T20:20:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*It’s at shame you flunked reading comprehension. What you ‘glean’ exists only in your imagination. Let’s try again looking at what is actually said shall we? > \*\* Not to get into a pissing contest with you regarding reading skills or their lack, but you did notice that the quotes under discussion were from the official Iraqi translation of McDermott and Bonior’s speech from Iraq, didn’t you? > [@](#): > > ## \*\* > > ## We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. > > Or in other words. **If** you are peace loving, we will not wish to wage war on you. This is a statement of our conditions for war, (and quite good ones, I think). It says nothing at all about whether or not he believes that the country is in fact peace loving. This would probably be considered a veiled threat. > \*\* So you suppose that a speech delivered from Baghdad, delivered by a couple of the most fervent anti-Bush doves in Congress, explicitly given in opposition to the current administration’s policies on foreign terror, is really saying nothing about whether war with Iraq is justified or not? To go to a foreign country and declare your opposition to military action against it, is really a “veiled threat” against that very country? By that logic, Jane Fonda posing for pictures in North Viet Nam next to anti-aircraft equipment was really a “veiled threat” of further air strikes. You must have been murder in the Boy Scouts, with those kinds of knots. > [@](#): > > ## \*\* > > ## As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression. > > ## to which you respond > > ## Action to enforce the inspections of Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction is “aggression”. > > Which is begging the question. Action to enforce inspections would by definition not be agression. On the other hand, you imply that diplomatic efforts would not be ‘action to enforce inspections’. Which is nonsense, of course. > \*\* It may well be nonsense, but it is nonsense being pitched by McDermott and Co. The distinction between “diplomacy” and military “aggression” is theirs. They want the one, but not the other. If you agree that military action to enforce inspections is not aggression, you are agreeing with me that McDermott and Bonior are moral idiots. If you are agreeing with M&B that military action to enforce the inspections is “aggression”, then your distinction is meaningless. Or to put it another way, what are you talking about? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\* > So war at this time would be agression precisely because it would not be an “action to enforce inspections”, but rather an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation in violation of international law. > > It can only be action to enforce inspections if the UN authorizes it. Last I checked, that hasn’t happened. \*\* And here we part company altogether. To class military action to enforce the inspections as “unprovoked assault”, or to pretend, as you seem to be doing, that poor old Iraq was just sitting there minding its own business when the big mean US decided to invade, is a statement so morally grotesque as to defy parsing. You did know that Iraq agreed to the inspections as a condition for a cease-fire after the Gulf War? You did remember that the Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait? You did realize that Iraq is in violation both of its own sworn oaths, and of international agreement by refusing to allow UN inspectors to inspect the sites where they are building weapons of mass destruction? Didn’t you? I don’t question your reading skills. I question your ability to see the world as it is. McDermott and Bonior can, in a sense, be excused for channeling Neville Chamberlain as they seem to be doing. They are representing districts which are far to the left of the American center, and moral blindness is many left-wing peaceniks’ stock in trade. But Iraq is in violation of a cease-fire to which they are signatories. The cease-fire was in the context of a war which they started. The UN agreed back in the nineties that Iraq had to fulfill certain conditions before they would be treated as a sovereign nation. They have persisted in their refusal to do so. The US, as the senior member of the coalition of the Gulf War, is entirely justified in actiing militarily to enforce the agreement. That McDermott and Bonior do not see this is unfortunate. It allows Saddam and the Iraqis to use them for what Lenin used to call “useful idiots”. Useful to the Iraqis, of course. For the freedom and safety of the Middle East, not so much. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/95 "2002-10-08T20:32:14Z")
Again and again, you guys start waving the UN resolutions in the air. If you base the legitimacy of your actions on the legitimacy of the UN resolutions, you must thereby base same on the legitimacy of the UN _itself_. Hence, the disagreement should be between the UN and Iraq. The US has no dispensation to appoint itself sheriff. But we already know better, don’t we? Our Leader made it clear from the git-go: he would like UN approval, it goes nicely. But he doesn’t really care, we’ll do it regardless. No doubt the member nations were quite moved by this gesture. The middle finger raised in salute is almost universally recognized. Hey, its our planet, you guys just live here. We want to raise your rent, we do it. We want to evict Iraq, so be it. We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/96 "2002-10-08T21:12:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\ ***Tejota** , if someone responded to this post by writing, _“I don’t like responding to poorly reasoned posts,”_ wouldn’t you think that response implied that your post was _poorly reasoned_? \*\* Possibly, it would depend on what I had said, and what else you said along with this quote. For instance, in this case. You do not appear to me to be implying that my post was poorly reasoned. 😉 In any case, the quote in question is not a response to anything that we can see, and must be taken on its own terms. The only valid context is the original context, not the imaginings of the poster. If you have evidence that the original context changes the meaning in the way that he suggested, then you need to provide that evidence. Oh, and I want to hilight this statement by **elucidator** > [@](#): > > Again and again, you guys start waving the UN resolutions in the air. If you base the legitimacy of your actions on the legitimacy of the UN resolutions, you must thereby base same on the legitimacy of the UN _itself._ Bravo! My point exactly. Violation of a 3rd party’s resolutions cannot be a valid basis for war unless the 3rd party authorizes us to act on their behalf. They have not. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/97 "2002-10-08T21:21:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **Shodan** wrote:_ > … but you did notice that the quotes under discussion were from the official Iraqi translation of McDermott and Bonior’s speech from Iraq, didn’t you? You were the first to provide an interpretation of the comments, if you are now trying to discredit the source, you only discredit your original comments. His interpretation was _at least_ as reasonable as yours (and in my mind, much more on target). To suggest otherwise, is to question the patriotism of members of Congress. And while that seems a popular pasttime of the hawks these days, it is downright despicable and wholly unsupportable. You torturously twist M&B comments, equate them with the “Hanoi Jane” episode, then hypocritically suggest **Tejota** is tying knots? Which you continue again: > [@](#): > > If you agree that military action to enforce inspections is not aggression, you are agreeing with me that McDermott and Bonior are moral idiots. When you had just quoted **Tejota** as saying: > [@](#): > > Action to enforce inspections would by definition not be agression. Do you allow for any action that is not military? > [@](#): > > You did know that Iraq agreed to the inspections as a condition for a cease-fire after the Gulf War? You did remember that the Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait? You did realize that Iraq is in violation both of its own sworn oaths, and of international agreement by refusing to allow UN inspectors to inspect the sites where they are building weapons of mass destruction? You did know that the cease-fire agreement did not provide for an invasion by the US or a “regime-change” as a remedy for breach, didn’t you? You may not have remembered that Iraq invaded Kuwait, because that was more than 10 years ago, and prior to the war that developed the cease-fire agreement. You may not remember that the inspections broke down four years ago. You might have some memory problems, because Saddam hasn’t done anything in the intervening four years (that has at least been publicized) to warrant the **sudden** obsession to topple him. What happens in most agreement breaches when the other party appears to accept the status quo? Who were the parties to the cease-fire agreement? You do remember that Iraq was able to provide credible evidence to the UN that the inspectors were feeding non-weapons inspection related information directly to US intelligence agencies, a function normally referred to as spying, don’t you? And that spying was not a condition that was covered in the cease-fire agreement. > [@](#): > > and moral blindness is many left-wing peaceniks’ stock in trade. like moral righteousness, indignation, and claims of unamerican activities is the right-wing stock in trade? > [@](#): > > The US, as the senior member of the coalition of the Gulf War, is entirely justified in actiing militarily to enforce the agreement. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true. But go ahead. Maybe you will convince someone. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/98 "2002-10-09T00:27:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Saying it over and over doesn’t make it true. But go ahead. Maybe you will convince someone. I seem to have done so already. > [@](#): > > The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam’s actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance…. > …we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintontext121698.htm](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/clintontext121698.htm) This is some bizarre stuff. > [@](#): > > You were the first to provide an interpretation of the comments, if you are now trying to discredit the source, you only discredit your original comments. His interpretation was at least as reasonable as yours (and in my mind, much more on target). This is stuff I literally cannot argue with. You don’t seem to be using words with the same meaning as I am. Are you arguing that Bonior and McDermott are _in support_ of President Bush? If so, why the dickens haven’t they corrected the universal interpretation that they went to Baghdad to speak out against US military action to enforce the inspections? This is too weird. > [@](#): > > You claim: > You may not have remembered that Iraq invaded Kuwait, because that was more than 10 years ago, and prior to the war that developed the cease-fire agreement. This almost immediately after a paragraph in which I posted: > [@](#): > > that the Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait I literally don’t know how to address your post. I cannot see how you can read the statements by Bonior et al., and interpret them as saying - well, whatever the hell you think they are saying. > [@](#): > > You might have some memory problems, because Saddam hasn’t done anything in the intervening four years (that has at least been publicized) to warrant the sudden obsession to topple him. You mean anything other than exactly what he has been doing - refusing to allow the inspections he committed to allow? And don’t you think that there might have been _something_ that happened in the last year or so that would warrant increased concern with Middle East sociopaths and weapons of mass destruction? Think hard. (I mean other than the election of a new President .) And you accuse **me** of memory problems! Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/99 "2002-10-09T03:20:26Z")
Will you please, _please_ stop trying to drag the Twin Towers into this discussion. There is nothing, not the slightest wisp of a hint of evidence connecting Saddam bin Laden with 9/11. You are parroting a party line utterly devoid of content. As Twain said “Its not what he don’t know thats so frightening, its the things he knows for certain that just ain’t so!” If you can construct a case proving that Saddam is involved in 9/11, please do so. If you cannot, may we dare to expect that you will stop alluding to it? ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2002, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663/100 "2002-10-09T04:25:29Z")
> [@](#): > > [sub]Originally posted by **December** , from the _Weekly Standard_, attributed to Congressman Jim McDermott, apparently translated by someone back from Arabic voiceover on Iraqi TV[/sub] > “We assert from here that we do not want the United States to wage war on any peace-loving countries. As members of Congress, we would like diplomatic efforts to continue so as not to launch any aggression.” **Shodan** interpretted the comments to mean: > [@](#): > > From which I glean that B&M claimed that > > - Iraq was a peace-loving country > - Action to enforce the inspections of Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction is “aggression”. And **Tejota** interpretted to the comments to mean: > [@](#): > > If you are peace loving, we will not wish to wage war on you. … Diplomacy is making progress, (hence the word ‘continue’). So war at this time would be agression precisely because it would not be an “action to enforce inspections”, but rather an unprovoked assault on a sovereign nation in violation of international law. Let the SDMB readers decide which interpretation is more likely. In regards to your Washington Post cite, it should be noted that the US, Britain, and/or the UN, did very little to enforce the cease-fire agreement after that event. Find me a single press release in 1999, 2000, or 2001, urging military action from the office of the President to enforce the UNSCOM inspections. And just recently, with renewed pressure, Iraq has agreed to meet the inspection conditions from the existing UN resolutions. Iraqi officials met with UNSCOM officials, headed by Hans Blix, and reached an agreement to resume inspections. Bush said that that was not enough. That we need a _new_ resolution. Or war. You keep speaking like US military actions are to “enforce weapons inspections”. Balderdash. The UNSCOM inspectors have said that going in under military cover is a bad idea. The administration talks about “regime change”. You are the one torturing the language. > [@](#): > > I literally don’t know how to address your post. You could start by answering direct questions, like: Who were the parties to the cease-fire agreement? And yes, I’m more concerned about one particular sociopath (Middle Eastern or Asian, which description you think fits better), that has found himself a cave, dead or alive, and prevents Bush his victory. And that’s a damn shame. I was rooting for Bush, but it looks like he’ll be focusing elsewhere for now. So you claim that Saddam has been refusing to allow the inspections over the last four years, I’ll agree, why haven’t we been seeking to enforce the agreement? Why have we been satisfied with the no-fly zones? And if he has now accepted the inspections, why are we creating new resolutions, instead of going in there and destroying any WoMD he has? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/with-friends-like-mcdermott-and-bonior-the-democrats-dont-need-any-enemies/129663.md?page=4)