And found it not to say what you claim it says. Bush received approval from congress and the populace based at least in part on misleading information, information the administration knew was misleading and even in some instances false when it provided it. Blix and the UN said inspections had not been given enough time, that the Bush administration was rushing to war, that the inspections were working, that weapons were being destroyed and the inspectors just needed more time. So if Kerry says that war with Iraq would be justifiable as a last resort, approved by an informed Congress and with proof provided to our citizens and allies, how does the administration's false certainties and certain falsities, rush to war, and disregard of the opinions of our allies, or anyone who disagreed, show Bush was following Kerry's "plan" for Iraq?
As it looks like Iraq never had most of those weapons we had "proof" that they had, any attempt to prove that those non-existant weapons were destroyed would likely be fruitless. So I ask you in return, if the US government was so sure the Iraqis had weapons, why did they present "evidence" they knew was false, such as the yellowcake document? Why did they not direct inspectors to areas where these known weapons could be found, and thereby obtain support from at least some doubters? Why did the administration rather try multiple times to block inspections?
|
