I'm trying to understand Kerry's various positions.
He said at one time that Saddam and his WMDs were a threat that needed to be taken care of. Later he said that Saddam was a diversion from Afghanistan. Despite that, he voted for giving the President authorization to use force against Iraq. One wonders, if he thought Iraq was a diversion, why even give the President such authorization?
He later said we're better off with Saddam gone but then in an interview months later says he wouldn't have gone to war with Saddam because it distracts from the war on Al Qaeda.
But then even later he says that even knowing what he knows now he would have still voted for the war resolution.
Yet today, in an interview with Diane Sawyer he says that knowing what he knows today he wouldn't have voted for it.
But when asked if going into Iraq was worth it he states:
SAWYER: So it was not worth it?
KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat --
Well wait a second, depends on the outcome? What kind of nonsense is that? And if Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, why did he vote for the war resolution in the first place?
I'm really trying to understand Kerry's position. Perhaps it is too "nuanced" for me.