Bold words:

I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term 'serious consequences will flow.' On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the Security Council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern – where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity? But in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.

John Kerry, November 12, 1997, rushing his way to war. I wanted to take the Democratic presidential candidate's "Me, Too" four-star plan for Iraq point by point but the man's inconsistencies are so glaring, closer examination seems like overkill. He spins like a top, coming up whichever way suits the moment. (Huh? Rebuild the military you've spent your career defunding, senator?) Clumsy transparency notwithstanding, the senator's statement deserves scrutiny — though examining them formally versus Googling for five minutes to find two completely contradictory statements is still under internal debate.