Bill Kristol, in his Weekly Standard column addresses Kerry's latest take on Iraq:
When Kerry returned home to voice his dissent in 1971, his message was clear: "We should be out of Vietnam now." Kerry speaks of today as an analogous moment. This confirms what is in any case evident from the bulk of his speech: Beneath all the phony talk of international summits and making Iraq "the world's responsibility," Kerry's policy would be to get us out of Iraq. That's why Kerry never says we need to win the war in Iraq, or that we can. Instead, he now explicitly says we would be better off with Saddam still in power.
With John Kerry, it is always about Vietnam and "quagmires". It is never about a strategic policy consistently enforced (I doubt that Kerry knows the meaning of the word "consistent").
Kerry spoke today at some campaign location, and he said that if Bush stayed in power, then Bush would "pursue the same failed policy" and would start more wars and "continue to mislead the American people". Frankly, this statement says more about what John Kerry would do than it does what George Bush would do. Because, what he said, I think, is that there is no circumstance under which he can possibly, conceivably, ever, ever imagine that he, John Kerry, would go to war. If 9/11 was not a justification for a war on terror, then even I can't imagine what circumstances would move Mr. Kerry to use force, except if it would advance his personal agenda. He certainly wouldn't use it to advance our national interest and security.
Well, I imagine that relieves the minds of Al Qaeda, the mullahs of Iran, North Korea, and any other group of international thugs. It is no wonder that they all have voiced their support of Kerry for President! He is on their side!
But please. Don't question his patriotism.
UPDATE: Here's an interesting bit of knowledge: Israel is winning its war against terrorism, and the U.S. could learn from its example.