Diane Sawyer interviewed John Kerry on Good Morning America. This must be a first - Kerry accusing the media, especially Diane Sawyer, of twisting his words. And Kerry's reputation as a flip-flopper is well earned in this part of the interview.
DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
DS: So it was not worth it.
JK: ...depends on the outcome ultimately...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, there were no weapons of mass destruction...no connection to Al Qada, to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people plain and simple. Bottom line.
DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
JK: No.
DS: But right now it wasn't.
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.
DS: But no way to get rid of him.
JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.
DS: So you're saying that today, if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing, you would prefer that . . .
JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane, don't twist here.
Flip one: Kerry: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." Wait a minute, John, last month you said, "Knowing what I know now I would have still voted for it." (authorization to go to war).
Flip two: Sawyer: So it( Iraq war)was not worth it.
Kerry: ...it depends on the outcome ultimately...
Sawyer: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?
Kerry: No
Wait a minute, John - you just said it depends on the ultimate outcome as to whether the war was worth it. Now you say no, it's not. You just flipped in the space of one paragraph!
Flip three: Kerry:" ...but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat - there was no weapons of mass destruction." Wait John. You said on Oct 2, 2002," I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a real & grave threat to our security."
You also said, John, on Jan 23, 2003, in regards to Saddam, " He is a particularly grievious threat because he is so consistantly prone to miscalculation...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
And again, May 3, 2003( Primary Debate), "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, & when the President made the decision, I supported him, & I support the fact that we did disarm him."
Again: In your Sept 2002 New York Times op-ed: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is
mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
But then, last month: "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."
Is it any wonder why voters have no clue where Kerry stands on Iraq? It smells of opportunism on his part. And it is. But the guy can't get his story straight, not even in the same interview. It is a wonder that Kerry's supporters can defend him with a straight face. But maybe they can't. Besides, Kerry is the victim here. Diane Sawyer is "twisting" his words, although he's done a pretty good job without Diane's help. Go home, John. Game over.
....from sea to shining sea