But about did Bush lie? Al Qaeda? WMDs? Kerry doesn?t bother explaining. Kerry, in fact, doesn?t even have the guts to say that Bush ?lied,? but the implication couldn?t be clearer.
If Kerry?s recent remarks are any indication, a primary Democratic theme this fall will be that Bush has blood on his hands?for waging a war Kerry supported. Immediately after the release of the Senate panel?s report, Kerry told the New York Times, ?They were wrong and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong.?
Who are ?they?? Factually, it would have to be the CIA, yet contextually, it appears Kerry was referring to Bush and Cheney. The article seems to back up the latter interpretation.
Four separate calls to the Kerry campaign last week seeking clarification were not returned. A pattern, perhaps?
To be fair, almost every candidate for every office throughout time has muddied the political waters. Try as he might, though, Kerry can?t be both pro- and anti-war.
But boy, has he tried.
After voting to authorize the war in 2002?and using stark rhetoric about the threat posed by Saddam in his accompanying speech?he has intermittently been a peacenik since. He opposed the $87 billion for rebuilding the country, and now he routinely blasts Bush for launching a war he himself supported.
When he?s not busy pandering to the Moveon.org crowd, though, Ted Kennedy?s prot? poses as a hawk. Just Friday, Kerry appeared to back pre-emptive strikes, saying that he would be ?prepared as president to go get them before they get us.?
The caveat he sneaked in right afterward, however, is what reveals his true intentions: ?if we? have sufficient intelligence.? What exactly would be ?sufficient?? The fact that he leaves that issue cloudy probably says it all.
Moments later, he offered an apparent endorsement of unilateral action: ?I will never allow any other country to veto what we need to do and I will never allow any other institution to veto what we need to do to protect our nation.? This from the same man who the day earlier who had blasted Bush for ?needlessly going it alone??despite having done everything short of putting France and Germany in a headlock before amassing a ?coalition of the willing? comprised of over 35 countries.
Kerry can?t dance this way forever and expect to win. Voters need some sense of his proposed direction. For all the brickbats thrown at Bush, at least folks know where he stands.
The same can?t be said for Kerry. Voters suffer migraines attempting to reconcile his criticisms that Bush should have submitted to the whims of France and Russia with Kerry?s supposed support for unilateral action. Ditto for endorsing preemptive action in between speeches where one of the biggest applause lines is, ?In our Administration, we?ll never go to war because we want to; we?ll only go to war because we have to.?
Maybe Kerry won?t deviate much on the War on Terror. Who knows? But that?s the point.
Joel Mowbray, who got his start with Townhall.com, is an award-winning investigative journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist and author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security.
Be the first to read Joel Mowbray's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.