How hard can it be
to tie John Kerry in knots over Iraq if even Diane Sawyer can do it? Consider this exchange, as reproduced by PoliPundit:
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: We should not — it 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 — there were no weapons of mass destruction — there was no connection of Al Qaeda — 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, even 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.
There's little need to analyze this exchange-- the real story is Kerry's inability, after all this time, to sound coherent on Iraq, and his testiness when a relatively friendly journalist asks for straight answers. But there is another story. Kerry is now claiming that there "absolutely" were ways to "get rid" of Saddam without the U.S. going to war with him. And it is through this claim, apparently, that Kerry intends to argue that it was not worth it to go war, while avoiding a concession that he prefers having Saddam in power to the present situation.
Sawyer did not ask Kerry how we could have toppled Saddam without taking him on militarily (why should she have; she was already trouncing him?). If she had asked, Kerry might have responded that eventually the U.S. could have taken him on with a broader coalition, as if (a) France would ever have joined us and (b) having a few Frenchmen on the ground would make the present situation materially different. In any event should Kerry's statement to Sawyer become his latest position on Iraq, he might as well throw in the towel. In the current environment, I can't conceive of Americans electing a president that prone to ducking hard choices through wishful, if not delusional, thinking.
