corrente

Walter Pincus reports:

"We were misled not only in the intelligence but misled in the way that the president took us to war," the Democratic front-runner, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), said when asked on "Fox News Sunday" about Kay's statements. "The president cut off that process [U.N. inspections]. He chose the date to start this war. He said the time for diplomacy is over."

But Kerry also served notice he would focus on Vice President Cheney's role in describing the threat from Hussein during the run-up to the war last spring. He said that Cheney, who took the public lead in describing the threat from Iraq beginning in August 2002, "exaggerated clearly" on several issues. "I know the vice president either misspoke or misled the American people," he said.

All true. The only problem? Why is Kerry saying this now? My issue with Kerry is that he trusted Bush in the first place. After Florida 2000, why on earth would anyone do that? The passive voice—"we were led" shows the problem clearly. Why was Kerry passive then?

Bush had positioned the troops and their materiel far before beginning the political process of securing approval for war. But did anyone seriously think he was going to bring all of it back without going to war?

Why was Kerry passive? A far graver error strategically, politically, and for the country, then any "gaffe."