Reply #65: I am trying to help you. [View All]

[K-W]

If you would just calm down for a few minutes and listen you would understand that the IWR isnt what you think it is.

Do I need to give you an entire history of Iraq since Gulf War 1? I hope not, so lets start with post 9/11. 9/11 happens, and the administration starts circulating information that Iraq has WMD's and saying that Iraq was part of 9/11. Iraq is already under sanctions from Gulf War 1, and already not allowed to have WMD's. There had been previous inspections.

So with all this info, there is pressure to find out if Iraq does have WMD's and does have ties to 9/11. The UN sends in inspectors, Bush is pushing hard for inspections.

The IWR stated that in the event that inspections and all other peaceful attempts fail, and saddam has or is concealing weapons, or if Saddam was tied to 9/11, the president can use force. Congrss did not give up thier constitutional duty, they did thier constitutional duty, they perscribed the exact conditions neccesssary for the US to go to war, as is thier right in the constitution.

Kerry says he voted for the IWR because he felt that it would provide leverage for inspections. If saddam knew that force could be used if he didnt allow inspections, he would be more inclined to allow them. So far Kerry's position is perfectly reasonable. If Saddam is hiding something, or has something, then war is justified.

Bush then, lies to america, lies to congress, lies to the world, subverts the inspection process, and goes to war outside of the conditions in the IWR.

As far as 9/11, it was a part of the IWR, Bush said saddam was part of 9/11, the IWR said that if that proved true, Bush could act.

Kerry acted completely within the law and completely rationally. Bush is the one who misused his office to fight an illegal war.