How to counter the "... in 1998 Kerry / Clinton said ..." with the facts

that they and we KNOW more NOW than they and we did then?

I see the freeper freaks CONSTANTLY harping on the old "well in 2000 Kerry said he supported taking out saddam, and now he's against it!" and the same with any positions of clinton. I usually try to re-direct the issues back to bush, but in some cases it's very clear that the lines changed into those reflecting the truth; such as we now know that saddam didn't have ANY wmds...

What's the simplest, best position to take against that line of crap?
I'd like to hear from the smart-asses in particular.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954

Bush can't call Kerry a flip-flopper anymore--he's an even bigger one. It's like Hugh Hefner calling someone a pimp!

:headbang:
rocknation

Now you could be simplistic with "but in some cases it's very clear that the lines changed into those reflecting the truth; such as we now know that saddam didn't have ANY wmds..." But the counter will be Bush had the same info, blah blah blah, inspectors were out until Blix 6 months before the war blah blah blah. I would go with, "it appears they were wrong in 1998, maybe Desert Fox wasn't the right way to go, but how does that in any way justify the current Iraq occupation?"

With Bush and moderates/Republicans, I take the tact that Bush is expanding government at a rate most Democrats could only dream of. Add to this his refusal to make sure revenue is available for this expansion and you have deficits as far as the eye can see. I find "credit card" Republican as a description for Bush to be most effective.

Edit: {sp}

I support a regime change in the U.S. too, but not by an invasion of France. (not totally sure on that) After 1998, we had no way of knowing what was happening with the WMD in Iraq, which is why Kerry very specifically supported a UN resolution ONLY to disarm Saddam with military action as a last resort. Changing the Iraqi regime didn't have to happen with a full-scale, unilateral invasion. John Kerry has the intelligence and diplomatic skills to effect that change without war. We forced Taylor out of Liberia. The right amount of diplomacy and threat of force would have done the same thing in Iraq. But that's not what the Bushies wanted, they wanted a U.S. occupation.