That depends on the outcome.
Kerry Screws The Pooch!
"JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's — I mean look — we have to succeed. But was it worth — as you asked the question — $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things — there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein."
Sounds like John (the F stands for Fonda) sKerry dropped all of his mental cue cards while trying to talk! (I wonder if there was an audible crash that came from John's head?! 8^D
Man, if he can't handle questions comig from Diane Sawer then he's toast!
"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today"
I will never forget a news story about a man who was trapped on the 4th story of a burning building. All he could see is scores of people waiving - all he could hear was the word jump. With the flames burning his backside he jumped-breaking several bones.
On the ground - the people were really yelling - don't jump - the fireman are on their way. The didn't know his backside was being burned.
A reporter went on and on about how stupid the man was to jump. He did not let his viewers know that he had arrived on the scene after the fact, nor did he tell his viewers that his opinions were based on the fact that the eyewitnesses knew that help was on the way. He basically was saying-
" He should not have jumped knowing the information that we know today"
What time is the debate. I want to make sure I catch it. The contrast between the president and the poodle should be startling.
Kerry's in a no win on Iraq... he has to somehow articulate coherently and concisely an argument that says all of the following at the same time:
A) Going to war against Saddam was bad.
B) Saddam was a really really bad man.
C) Removing Saddam was good.
D) War to remove him was bad.
E) Even though the BAD war, successfully removed SADDAM (GOOD), it was still BAD.
F) There were other options to remove saddam (good)... of course all of these had failed for over 11 years, and Saddam continued to engage in Acts of War against the US during that time (firing on US flights in No Fly Zone, etc etc etc).(BAD)
G) The No Fly Zones were illegal, so Saddam attacking the US doesn't count as act of war. (according to him and his surrogates, but even the UN doesn't buy that one)
H) We know he had and used WMD (bad) and all intelligence said he still had a weapons program (bad)
I) Since we didn't find anyt WMD though, even though Saddam was a really bad bad man, who violated the international community for 11 years, harbored terrorists, funded WMD programs in Libya, and likely moved his WMD's and other weapons to Lebanon and Syria before the war... removing him from power was bad because we didn't find WMD on the ground afterwards.....
So in simple terms... Kerry can't make any arguments on Iraq against the war without sound A) INSANE or B) HYPOCRITCAL to sane americans.
Kerry basically can't win, he's making an argument that cannot be remotely justified by facts, or by his own words.
Hell even his excuse about the $87 Billion being a late in the evening tired inarticulate moment was a flat out lie as he made the statement at noontime.