Here is what I do not understand:
Iraq was a "mistake" there are no terrorists or threats there.
Then in the same debate:
"Terrorist are pouring over the border"
If terrorists are not in Iraq, then who are the car bombers and people sawing civilians heads off?
This is such an obvious contradiction. Bush needs to ask Kerry who is doing this if not terrorists? the Boy Scouts?
Kerry's idea is the same as Michael Moore's; that Iraq before the "occupiers" came was a Disneyland of peaceful bliss, and that terrorists only came there after we did.
Not to mention, that Allawi himself, said that terrorists were already in Iraq before WE even went there.
Kerry is a contradiction unto himself.
I'll do you one better. Kerry said he would hunt down and kill terrorists wherever they are. Then why does he lament that "terrorists are pouring over the border" into Iraq? They're making our job easier, coming to us, and coming from places where we can't send troops to get them: Syria, Iran, Pakistan.
If Kerry will hunt down and kill terrorists wherever they are, and if there are terrorists in Iraq, then why does Kerry want to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible?
Of course, not only is this factually incorrect, it is 180-degrees away from comments JK made before the war began.
JK's main point on the war (in an attempt to show consistency) is, although that Saddam was bad and something needed to be done, GB went about it the wrong way: not enough allies, didn't expend all diplomatic options.
Again, this is factually duplicitous. Diplomatic options had been undertaken the previous 10 years to no avail. All nations were asked to join the effort to enforce sanctions in Iraq. If GB had done what JK now says GB should have done, it truly would have been "more of the same."
Truly, JK would have dealt with Iraq differently, and as GB said, the world would have been a more dangerous place had the US not taken ACTION.