John Kerry gave away the game when he answered the question (had you known then what you know now ... ) in the first place, but his answer now is not inconsistent with what he said then.

From his floor speech at the time:

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

So in other words, had the president actually fulfilled his obligations with regard to the bill, (1) the war probably wouldn't have happened and (2) the Iraq 'problem' would have been solved multilaterally however things would've gone.

He didn't vote for war, at least not directly. He voted for clearly-delineated presidential power and responsibility. So what, Bush is laughing at Kerry for thinking that the president would keep his word?

Mind you, I didn't agree with the vote then, and I don't now. I knew then that Bush only wanted to go to war in Iraq and that he would stretch anything he was given as far as he could to achieve that objective. But Kerry's position is consistent now with what it was then.