From Yahoo! News:
Kerry, who voted in the U.S. Senate for the war in Iraq but has since criticized Bush's handling of it, has taken political heat for trying to have it both ways, especially from Dean, who was against the war from the start.
"Howard Dean's opposition to the war was wrong," Kerry told reporters. "You can't just walk away. All along I said you had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but do it right."
Accountable for what? Being a jerk? (Simpsons' Chief Wiggum: “One count of bein' a bear, and one count of bein' an accessory to bein' a bear.”) For crimes against humanity? Then who holds Bush accountable for his war crimes? Is Kerry just being an accessory to being a jerk? When he held the hearings on the guns-for-drugs trades done by the Reagan-Bush people, I was impressed; but now the only thing he has to sell is that his Supreme Court nominations wouldn't be as bad as Bush's. He's already voted for Bush's war, and now he's helping Bush perpetuate the myth we all know is false, that Saddam had attacked us (or was about to attack us) in such a way that we needed to kill several thousand innocent people and destroy tens of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure in Iraq. He has enough knowledge to make a strong, reasoned critique from the point of view of a decorated veteran. Instead, he buckles.
How did we reach a state where someone like Kerry, whom I take to be both smarter and more honest than most politicians, is too scared to take a stand? Or is Kerry really seriously confused about this issue, and unable to decide what he believes? If so, why? I can see why Bush needs a war; with the economy still headed south for most people, and the corporate scandals continuing to involve his personal friends and campaign contributors, he needs something to distract the public's attention. But what's Kerry's excuse?