I don’t know that Bush is wrong on the substance of Iraq. That is, I supported going in and I support staying in (though I think the 30 June power turn-over is way early), most of Bush’s post-war Iraq policy has been poorly handled at best. So if Kerry and Bush have similar policies, I’d think that we have a good chance of getting them competently accomplished, with Kerry in office...

There's just one problem: his lips are moving.

It's simply not credible that the Dems will do anything other than cut 'n run, no matter what they say in public. Too many of the party powerful and faithful believe too strongly otherwise.

If it were true that Kerry has the same policy/strategy as Bush for Iraq, then we would have to pick a candidate based on their positions on other important issues (such as the economy). In my view, Bush wins on most of those. Or at least on those where I can tell what Kerry's position is; it can be tough with all that "nuance" flying around.

I'm with DSmith on this. Considering which holiday weekend Kerry decided to make these assertions, it looks like run of the mill pandering. If he keeps reinforcing this stance through the summer months, he'll probably just drive the "No War, Ever!" voters into Nader's arms, or they'll just stay home and stick pins in their Trilateral Commission voodoo dolls.

Well, seeing that Kerry originally supported the war until Dean was crushing him in the polls, maybe he actually supports the war in his heart.
Also, it's not like he can run on the economy these days.

Yeah, that's the thing. The Washington Post missed one little word in their characterization of Kerry's position: "now". As in, John Kerry's war position now is sober and responsible and not, on substance, much of any different from Bush's position. And they should have included an addendum: Who knows what is position on the issue might be tomorrow, though.

I echo what others have said, Kerry is saying the right things now, but will he always be saying the right things? The man is a straddler, and thinks he can somehow please everyone at once. That is impossible at this moment. Something hits my memory, something about hot or cold, and vomit in connection to lukewarm...

Either way, the biggest problem is the Democratic Party, not just Kerry. The Party itself is being torn asunder by the "anti-war" types, and I don't see how Kerry can manage to keep party support for the things that he needs to do.

Kerry, a confessed war criminal, is entirely too full of himself. I don't trust him to say what he really thinks, if he has any convictions at all. His repeated verbal contortions are pathetic. Clinton, the very definition of lovable rogue, could pull it off. Kerry just comes off as spiteful and mean. He should be appointed ambassador to France. They deserve each other.

Bush sometimes makes me wince (how could he possibly fumble the pronunciation of Abu Ghraib in a formal speech?), and he's no conservative, but I never doubt his sincerity or steadiness of purpose. And, his purpose, though bold and fraught with risk, is a noble one.

I'm glad to hear that Kerry flopped in the right direction this time, at least.

Would a President Kerry have moved on Saddam despite UN stonewalling? I doubt it. And if you set aside the transparent media negativity then it's clear that Bush and his cabinet have done a pretty darn good job in Iraq. The economy is doing nicely. Unemployment is down. If Kerry's war position is substantially the same as Bush's, and his domestic policies so nebulous as to be nonexistent, then why would I choose Kerry?

Kerry's position, even as stated, is incorrect...the fundamental flaw is his consider war to be a "last resort" thing and "unilateralism" only after clear failure to obtain alliance support...let me tell ya, guys and gals, there's always one more "resort" to go to and more more effort to corrall allies for a leader determined to wriggle out of fighting a war...Kerry would not immediately cut and run in Iraq, but he'd be looking for a way out, and the whole world would know it...George Bush wins and the whole world knows were in it for good and all...if GW wouldn't cut out during an election year when it might have helped him, he's sure as heck not going to cut out when he's term-limited out of running for office again.

Vote Bush - win the war/Vote Kerry - lose the war after a "decent interval".

Wars tend to be supported by the public, even the ones that don't go well (remember what happened to McGovern). What makes politicians dovish is the tendency of war-supporters to blame the politicians for being incompetent when the war runs into even a slight problem. Andrew Cory's remark is an example. Another is that polls show that people want less or more force in Iraq, few people will say that everything's just about right.