Kerry Kerry, quite Contrary

Drudge has an interesting exchange b/t Brokaw and Kerry
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.
Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."
Kerry: "Not necessarily."
Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."
Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."
Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."
Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

Excuse me, Senator Kerry, Saddam DIDN'T comply. That's why the U.N passed the final resolution, out of some previous 18 or so to show to Saddam that this was the final straw. You see, you just can't say you will use force if you won't, for if the enemy knows you will never attack, then there is no LEGITIMATE threat of force. Saddam was attempting call us out to see if we were bluffing. When cards were revealed, it turned out we had a full house and the U.N. a low pair. Paris already stated they would never authorize force, no matter what. I thought the U.S. showed to the world that we have a pretty long fuse, and we'll work with you, but there is a big ole bomb at the end of that fuse, so don't mess with us.

What I'd really like Kerry to explain is what you do after Saddam doesn't comply for the 10,000 time? and what if the "axis of weasels" is unwilling to support you? Have you failed the "Global test" and therefor unable to use the force?