1. You're not making any sense. There aren't any "reasosn" to oppose the war in that paragraph at all, it's merely a recounting of the history of one bill.
2. Stuff like this...
No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.
...is why I think Freepers who are fans of Ron Paul have had a large protion of their brain removed. Clinton cited any number of legitimate security concerns when he advanced that bill. Clinton specifically cited the possibility that Iraq might pass WMDs to terrorists or use them on U.S. troops or allies. If preventing that is not a "legitimate national security concern" in Ron Paul's world, he deserves a Darwin Award. Heck, he deserves a lifetime achievement Darwin Award.
I'll make two points in response to that.
1. I find myself questioning the sanity of any Freeper who cites Bill Clinton as a reliable measure of why the U.S. went to war in Iraq.
2. One of the most baffling aspects of the run-up to the war in Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 was the way so many so-called "conservatives" were willing to accept the same silly "weapons of mass destruction" mantra that was nothing more than a deliberate campaign by the Clinton administration had used to garner political support among soccer moms with double-digit IQs.
If anyone has any doubts about either of these points, just ask yourself why the Clinton administration suddenly determined that Iraq represented some kind of major threat to the U.S. in the fall of 1998 after it became clear that Bill Clinton was going to be impeached.
Then ask yourself why those "legitimate security concerns" suddenly vanished in early 1999 -- only to be replaced by "mass graves in the Balkans" as the primary foreign policy concern of that sh!tbag administration.