Kerry: No Iraq flip-flop

It has begun -- the presidential campaign of 2004. Now that John Kerry is well on his way to becoming the official Democratic nominee, many are trying to paint him as a serial flip-flopper. In particular, they have zeroed in on his criticism of the war in Iraq as being contradictory to his initial vote in favor. This is no contradiction -- and there is good reason to question whether invading Iraq was the best way to become more secure. \nFirst, why isn't Kerry being a hypocrite? Consider what he actually voted on. In October 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution clearing the way for war. It was a 10-page document chockfull of interesting assertions. This legislation stated as a fact Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. It stated al Queda terrorists were being harbored in Iraq. And it referenced connections to Sept. 11 no fewer than four times. This is what John Kerry voted for.\nFlash forward to the present. Bush has admitted there was no Iraqi connection to Sept. 11. The infamous WMDs cited as a justification for war 10 times in the resolution haven't turned up, and the chief U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay, has now stated in front of Congress U.S. intelligence was wrong on this threat. It was the facts that flopped -- Kerry can criticize in good conscience. What is at issue is how Congress and the American public were misled. While Bush may not be directly responsible, it's always fair to criticize the CEO. \nThen there is the issue of whether or not this war made America safer. Most Americans probably assumed because Iraq was painted to be the biggest threat to our security -- eliminating Hussein would get us the biggest bang for our safety-buck. But while we were busy chasing weapons that didn't exist, other countries were busy trading weapons technology that definitely does exist. \nRecently, the so-called father of the Pakistani bomb project, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted he let a few nuclear secrets slip -- a few times -- to countries including Libya and Iran, a member of the axis of evil. A recent article by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker quotes one senior U.S. intelligence official as saying, "Khan was willing to sell blueprints, centrifuges and the latest in weaponry. He was the worst nuclear-arms proliferator in the world ... " Musharraf, the unelected leader of the country, thought a public apology was enough punishment, and he let Khan off with that. Worse yet, there is good reason to wonder if the leadership of Pakistan was aware of these shady dealings. \nOf course, this kind of activity could mean real weapons fall into the hands of real terrorists. So what is the President doing about this? Calling out the army? Raising diplomatic hell? Well -- err -- not so much. The current focus of the White House is catching bin Laden. In the New Yorker article, Hersh made a case that the U.S. made a deal to overlook the Khan incident in exchange for access to parts of Pakistan for U.S. troops hunting the fugitive, bin Laden. Musharraf has previously opposed U.S. troops entering Pakistan. \nPresident Bush seems to suffer from a chronic case of mixed priorities and an inability to identify what is truly the worst threat. The U.S. is putting everything else on hold to track down a man in a cave who has been reduced to communicating via donkey-gram. \nMeanwhile, a man who actively helped so-called terrorist states acquire nuclear weapons gets pardoned and is a free man. He has not even been interrogated about who bought his designs. Which of these men is more dangerous? \nMaybe Bush should try a flip-flop on this one.