Kerry now says he is glad Saddam is gone, but he doesn't like the way the president chose to get rid of him. But Kerry has never provided a credible alternative to ousting Saddam, or said how he would have forced Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions or stop the murder of his own people, beyond the already proven empty rhetoric of asking for help from our European "allies" (who have made it quite clear they have no intention of helping in Iraq no matter who is president next year).
Perhaps realizing that more help is not on the way, Kerry's response to the president's address included this slight position shift: "Even if other nations won't undertake risky operations, they can do something." Cooking, perhaps? Tour guides? Song leaders? Whatever could he mean?
War needs soldiers. Too many of those who want the benefits of peace are unwilling to fight for it under the misguided impression that their pacifism (or cowardice) will buy them protection. It won't. It only delays the inevitable threat to free people everywhere.
Kerry accused the president of "lecturing" instead of leading the U.N. delegates. Bush did nothing of the kind. What he did was call for them to live up to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
"I have faith in the transforming power of freedom," said the president. Does the U.N.? Does John Kerry, and, if he does, how does he intend to spread the blessings of liberty to others who deserve it? His suggestions to date have been mostly incoherent.