He Was For It Before He Was Against It

I'm not sure the Kerry folks know about this thing called the "Internet". Past statements of his keep popping up which contradict current statements of his. Here's another example from Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard:

EVER SINCE John Kerry decided his best tack in this campaign was to turn against the Iraq war, despite his past support for it, his core argument has been that it was a diversion from the war on terror. Iraq, he has been insisting, had nothing to do with that war, which is about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, pure and simple. The administration erred, he now claims, by turning its attention to Iraq.

But it turns out that Kerry felt entirely differently at the time. In an interview with John McLaughlin on November 16, 2001--just two months after September 11 and before victory in Afghanistan was assured--Kerry was asked, "What do we have to worry about [in Afghanistan]?" Kerry answered:

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]

So on November 16, 2001, with the war in Afghanistan but a few weeks old and Osama bin Laden not yet captured, John Kerry was raising the bar for the Bush administration, wondering when it would go after Saddam Hussein.

Will the New York Times, the Washington Post, or any other mainstream media take note of this remarkable statement?