--Walzer lives in a fantasy that 1) the rest of the world was sensing a threat from Iraq militarily, 2) that Sodom needed to be militarily 'contained', and 3) that inspections agreed upon by the UN were *not* unconditional--recall that the inspections regime that Sodom was forced to accept [actually an inspections/spying regime] was the most unconditional any country had been subjected to in history, so said the inspectors themselves. Therefore the likelihood that, upon the discovery by inspectors that there were no WMDs...well that Gore could have sold the international community on the need to invade is pretty small. He'd have had to do it the way Bush did it, which was of course the only real option for those who wanted Iraq invaded.
-------------------------------- If Saddam didn't comply, multilateral war would've ensued. For a number of reasons, such a result would've been preferable to what we ended up with.
--except, of course what Walzer would overlook is that Sodom did comply and it still didn't matter, to conservatives and liberals alike. I said at the time, and I think i was proven correct, Sodom could have gotten rid of every last hammer and broomstick in Iraq and we still would have invaded... ------------------------------------------ The main reason Bush couldn't secure international backing was that his administration was largely and transparently unconcerned with getting it.
---that was the liberal response, but i believe it really is mistaken. it entirely overlooks that the Bushies were very perceptive, recognising that the clinton-gore approach would not get an illegal invasion, nor would appealing to the international community--since the case for invasion of a very very very very weak Iraq was so very very very very weak. Gore, to successfully invade Iraq would have had to go the same route Bush went--and it's quite possible he would have if the pressure to do so in the aftermath of a 911 was great enough.
steve