The
context: a Republican fund-raiser in local Arkansas.
It's a long rambling speech and not all that interesting to read, and the thing I take away from it is that there is no path from where he was then to where he says he is now. I read that and I get the impression that he is an interventionist of the first order, the evil anti-Griff. He sees a specific need for the US to be militarily involved in many different places. Iraq would have been a test of his theory as it played out.
I will wait to see how that person who was a serious hawk/interventionist pre-9/11 could convert to being anti-Iraq war.