JDG wrote:
The only acolyte is the one who can't see the flip-flop here:
KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.
Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.
KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But
you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat. And what's
interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been
preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.
Since you didn't get it the first time, I'll try a sports analogy; some quarterbacks are a threat to run but have limited passing ability. Others are great passers but couldn't outrun John Madden. If I was to reminisce that Dan Marino was a threat on offense, but later, when discussing scrambling quarterbacks, note that Marino wasn't much of a threat, would you accuse me of waffling?
As we now know (and as Bush and his henchpeople knew prior to the war even as they evoked the specter of mushroom clouds) Hussein had no nuclear capability and was not a _nuclear_ threat.
Is that clear now?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
