Out of the mouths of babes ...

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=20312&pid=1174

Dumb and dumber

Much like a cold air balloon, John Kerry's presidential campaign has been plummeting ever since late July, to the point that he has gone from narrowly leading the race to trailing President Bush by around 10 percentage points. Though some of Kerry's decline comes as result of the swift boat controversy, Kerry's troubles began when he did not receive the standard bounce coming out of the Democratic convention, an occurrence that predates any public questioning of Kerry's Vietnam record. Thus, something else must be partially to blame for Kerry's sorry standing in the polls, and a likely culprit is the senator's complete inability to articulate a consistent position on the Iraq War -- an incoherence that would disqualify him from the presidency if Bush's position on the war was not even more intolerable.

(snip)

Alas, Kerry and clear positions go together much like Zell Miller and Chris Matthews. Thus, when pressed by Bush in August, Kerry said that knowing what he knows now he would still have supported the Iraq resolution. In other words, knowing that the sole reason he gave for his vote at the time, Iraq's WMD stockpiles, no longer applied, for some unbeknownst reason, Kerry still would have supported the resolution. Perhaps fearing his position was still inadequately convoluted and contradictory, yesterday, as reported by Reuters, Kerry said that Bush pursued "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time," but never acknowledged the fact that he supported the Senate resolution that allowed Bush to pursue such a wrongheaded war and does not regret it. Candidates for public office owe the public clear positions on issues so that they might be judged on the basis of these positions. Kerry's opaqueness on the single most important issue of the day does a disservice to America's voters -- a disservice for which he is likely to be punished for at the polls.

Yet if Kerry's Iraq stance has one saving grace, it is that where he lacks a consistent position, Bush consistently takes the wrong position. His primary justification for war, WMDs, now in shambles, the president has taken to defending the invasion on the grounds that it prevented Saddam from producing weapons and promoted democracy. But there are dozens of brutal despots in the world, some of whom, such as North Korea's Kim Jong Il, may already possess WMDs, making an invasion of Iraq on such grounds dubious. And if promoting democracy was truly the president's aim, there are dozens of more effective ways than starting wars that cost a thousand American lives and counting, countless Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

The president's stubbornness in defense of the Iraq War ought to be his undoing, if only Kerry would admit his own mistakes on the issue. Instead, as Kerry sees his chance at the presidency slipping away, he may be inclined to shake things up by going negative or making more staff changes. Yet if the senator truly wanted to reinvigorate his campaign, or at least provide it with some clarity of purpose, he would simply state, "The Iraq War was wrong and I should not have voted for it."

I don't find Kerry's position inconsistent. I don't agree with the politics that led to the decision on the part of the Bush admin. or Congress to vote this so called "authority" in place. But I do not have any trouble understanding what Kerry is saying and I have not found his remarks to be inconsistent.

So, what does that make me?

Stupid? Hardly

Mislead? Not a chance

I know what the man Kerry is saying and I understand what he is saying. Frankly, I think this whole thing is as overblown as the swift boat allegations. And we all know who kept that crap up.

So thanks, but no thanks. I prefer my clear thinking to further muddying of the waters.

"W stands for Wrong" is a huge step in the right direction.

Kerry's statements are not inconsistent to me. Common knowledge tells me that Bush somehow lost control over the threat of terrorism resulting in 9/11, resorted to extensive military action against Iraq to destroy alleged WMD, found nothing and ends up critisizing his critics in defense of the poor outcomes of his leadership. Roller coaster thinking.

Common sense tells me that Kerry has consistently advocated a controlled response to terrorism whereas George Bush advocates a shock and awe approach to terrorism that is/has been ineffective.

W/Wrong

K/Right

Americans/sick of the subject

1000+ dead, for what?

couldn't at least Kerry say that if he knew how Bush would mis-use the authority, Kerry wouldn't have voted for it?

But he should have risked the inevitable "more flip-flopping" rejoinder on this issue to make a clear, cogent and easily distilled statement on Bush's bullshit rationale for going to war.

"W stands for Wrong" is a great step in the right direction. I think it's already paying dividends.

Bush does that all by himself. If you understand Kerry and I understand Kerry, others do too. Look, the vote happened, the war in Iraq happened and even today when 1000+ are dead, what do people (and Bush) want to moan about? One fucking vote. If George Bush had not gotten the vote of John Kerry he would have waited for no one.

Including you and I. The issue has mutated. It is about Iraq now, not two years ago.