I realize he was a bit hawkish at times, but he realizes today that he was a fool to listen to Bush. I do not recall him asserting that Saddam was a imminent nuclear threat.
BTW, I guarantee you that Bush is a far greater danger to Iranians then Kerry/Edwards. Your making quite a leap here suggesting that K/E will bomb Iran. Especially without any information to back up that assertion.
Planning to Vote Nader this year? He doesn't even have a position on Foreign Policy/Iran on his website. He also says NADA about "Homeland Security". Why is he an acceptable candidate? He hasn't a platform other than what is plagerized from other people. And in spite of that, it's incomplete.
I do agree with you about "us" supporting dictators, but the US is "them" as in the friggen Republicans.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of sanctions, but the US under Bush the first, acted in concert with the international community to sanction Iraq, and were it not for the pillaging of the oil for food program, Iraqi people may have been unharmed. Further, the sanctions are said to be the reason that Saddam did NOT have WMD's (according to the same CIA report that came out today indicating Saddam DID NOT have WMD's.) Again, not defending the particulars of the sanctions here just clearing a few things up.
The Clinton administration disarmed Saddam Hussein in concert with the UN, and I assure you the Iraqi people would rather Clinton was in office today then Bush.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/strategy.html