Kerry's plan for Iraq, as ever, involves mysterious references to "allies" - and much FUD about Bush's supposed lack of a failure of a travesty of an insult of a plan. Plus sniping about restricting contracts for reconstruction to allies, which I doubt many people are going to see as a problem.
The difference between these two men is startling. Kerry whines and agitates about committees and meetings and summits - while Bush casually mentions one-on-ones with the finance minister of a free Iraq. Which seems more professional? Which has the most gravitas?
Crikey, Kerry is still hung up on Tora Bora. I still believe Bin Laden is dead, but hey, I could be wrong; either way, it doesn't help to be obsessed about failing to catch or kill him there any more than it does to obsess about when Clinton's DoD failed the same test.
I also fail to understand how he can be so quantum. Congress' vote to authorize war was exclusively about WMD, he claims; ergo no war of liberation can be just. Yet he claims to have supported the casus belli for war with Iraq since 1998. Guh?
"Everyone hates America. Why?"
Bush's explanation of unpopular decisions is very convincing, and (rightly) paints the EU morass as a feckless orgy of bureaucracy. The president should never do anything purely to win friends in the diplomatic corps.
Kerry is hung up on allies. And diplomacy. And the "rush to war." How can anyone believe that? Does no one remember how incredibly long that so-called rush was? He's even managed a flip-flop in the space of one minute, moving the goalposts of the intimation that Bush doesn't listen to advice from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.