Month: October 2004

Just when it looked like Kerry had finally settled on a position on the war in Iraq — that Saddam Hussein hadn’t attacked us on 9/11 and wasn’t a threat — all of a sudden, Kerry’s back to saying that Iraq was a threat and he might have gone to war against Iraq. From an interview with Tom Brokaw (courtsey of Henry Hanks),

Kerry is back to saying that Iraq was a threat:

Brokaw: “You said you wouldn’t go to war against him.”

Kerry: “That’s not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.”

Brokaw: “But he wasn’t destroying them.”

Kerry: “That’s what you have inspectors for. That’s why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It’s irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn’t be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn’t complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren’t carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it.”

Trying to figure out where Kerry stands on the war is almost as frustrating as getting my daughter to decide which outfit she wants to wear.