Kaus  points out a transcript of John Kerry that raises some interesting questions.
“I have no doubt, I’ve never had any doubt — and I’ve said this publicly — about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]
Kaus goes on to ask… rather incredulously, I think:
“Wait–I thought shifting the focus to Saddam was a “diversion” and distraction from the fight against Al Qaeda! Not, apparently, when Kerry saw an opportunity to score political points by advocating it. [But would he have rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace!-ed. Maybe not. But, given Kerry’s recent he-took-his-eye-off-the-ball rhetoric, it’s embarrassing that he brought up pivoting to Iraq “now” long before the Afghan campaign was over–indeed, when the Tora Bora battle against bin Laden’s men had barely begun.]”
And so now we must question as a matter of logic, why the reversal. Occam dictates that Kerry’s reversal is pure political opportunism.