I'm sorry. I assumed wrong. And I didn't watch the video.
No problem. I should be less subtle...
Saddam was a threat to the world long before 9/11. Kerry and Bush agree on that. Or at least they did, before Kerry transformed himself into the anti-war candidate when he realized that most Democrats were against the war. He's taken a position that he doesn't believe in. If you don't remember Kerry's positions on Iraq in 2001, 2002, and 2003, you should watch the
Kerry On Iraq video.
And if Clinton had been more proactive in fighting terrorism (as Bush is now), we could have avoided 9/11. In response to the 1993 WTC attack, he went after a handful of individuals who carried out the attack and did nothing against Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. And after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, he did zero. Instead he tried to use diplomatic pressure to get the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden. Nice work there. According the the 9/11 Commission Report, Bin Laden was surprised and likely enboldened by the U.S. inaction. One year later, he killed 3000 Americans.
Clinton also did nothing as Saddam obstructed UN inspectors, eventually kicking them out. As you can see in the video, Kerry thought Clinton wasn't doing enough to stop Saddam. And he was disappointed that Russia and France weren't doing enough.
Because of Bush's active strategy, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan can no longer threaten the world. Because of his diplomacy, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are firmly on our side of the fight against terrorism.
I'm worried that Kerry could be our next President because he is averse to war when it's unpopular. The next time we need to act to eliminate a threat, he might hesitate, and that's scary considering what's at stake.
Kerry is a smart guy, and he can reach the right conclusions. He had the right position on Iraq, as you can see from the video:
Kerry On Iraq videoBut he changed his position because it was unpopular. That's dangerous.