I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.

It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security.

President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:

"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations -- an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create -- to simply be ignored by this dictator.

I yield the floor.
-- closing statement by John Kerry, before the Senate, October 9, 2002

Sounds like he meant business, like he was behind striking Iraq if Hussein pushed it that far, and the fool did. Kerry also let the UN know where it can get off.

Yes, we do hold our elected officials "accountable". The trouble is, though, that Bush was right, and he has accounted for his actions that led to the Iraq invasion.

Too funny.

Now, I can see something like:
He recalled that Mr. Kerry had terrorists on his mind when the subject arose in his re-election campaign against Gov. William F. Weld in 1996. "Even in '96, he thought that was a close call," Mr. Rosenblith said, remembering an elaborate discussion of the issue. He said Mr. Kerry decided against a death penalty for terrorists at that time because he thought it would keep other countries from extraditing terrorism suspects to the United States.

Indeed, Mr. Kerry said in a debate that Mr. Weld's support for the death penalty "would amount to a terrorist-protection policy."

What changed Mr. Kerry's mind, Mr. Rosenblith said, was that after Sept. 11, 2001, "other countries are far less likely to say, `No, we're not going to turn over this person to you.'"

"The world looks at terrorism very differently," Mr. Rosenblith said.

Very understandable. 9/11 changed a lot of personal perspectives.

But this:
Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense -- but is also "provocative and counterproductive", and a "barrier to peace". The pro is for a Jewish leaders rally, and con is for an Arab-American rally, both just days apart.

And same-sex marriages?
On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."

(HZ Source)

I guess it all depends upon what time of day it is that a question is posed to Kerry -- as well as who you are, what city he's in, what city you're from, and who's really listening.

Dan