Kerry Policy: Slave to the U.N.?

I have been trying, trying and trying to be fair and balanced to John Kerry (search) on the issue of the War on Terror and the war in Iraq.

A bunch of you are mad at me for saying Tuesday that I believe President Anybody — and that would include Kerry — would have gone after Saddam Hussein (search) after 9/11.

My point was simply that political pressure from me and you would force President Anybody to make sure Saddam was no longer a threat, and that probably would have required the U.S. military to show up in Iraq and find him in his spider hole.

Many of you wrote to say I was wrong, and then it turns out Kerry also said I was wrong.

Kerry as much as said Thursday in Waterloo, Iowa that he would not have gone after Saddam. What he actually said is that he would have gone after Saddam after we had our allies on board.

The asterisk in that sentence is that the allies weren't going to be with us. They had been bought off in the U.N., and they were more interested in keeping Saddam in business.

Then Bill Kristol (search) wrote this in The Weekly Standard online:

"In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he (Kerry) said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

In other words, U.S. troops only go if the U.N. says go.

In other words... bad, bad, bad.

So even though I've tried to maintain faith that no matter what is said in a political campaign to show how different you are from your opponent... President Anybody would have been forced to go after Saddam...
As much as I love that concept, I have to admit it is a matter of pure faith, and in Kerry's case, he is definitely convincing me he would not have.

I stand corrected.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: