You know what? I think the premise that the US invaded Iraq over it's potential nuclear weapons program was legitimate in the eyes of the world. So that isn't the problem. Saddam once did have an active nuclear weapons program (I don't suppose any of you remember when the US surrogate in the region, Israel, bombed Saddam's nuke plant?). Nuclear proliferation is the most serious military threat we, and the world, now faces. So the claim that Iraq had an ACTIVE nuclear weapons, and a STOCKPILE of chemical and biological weapons, had it been true, certainly would have constituted an international crisis.

However, most the world knew, because of the excellent work done by the UN weapons inspectors, that Iraq DID NOT have an active nuclear weapons program, nor stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The UN weapons inspectors had it right. The UN's intelligence was right. How come John Kerry won't admit that? And why did John Kerry say that even knowing what we know now for certain (ie that there were no WMDs in Iraq), that he STILL would vote the same way on the Bush resolution to go to war? How can he say that, when he is also claiming that the US should not have rushed to war, and square that with his current (since the first presidential "debate") claims that we did not have to go to war in Iraq at all, because diplomacy, sanctions, and weapons inspections were working?

John Kerry is the most morally bankrupt Democratic presidential candidate in memory, IMNSHO.