The Kerrymeleon is at it again.

One day he's a Democratic Senator voting for war. Months later he's the anti-war candidate, the same soldier that "threw away" his medals (ok, he didn't throw them away, just the ribbons--does that count?).

One day we were wrong to go to war in Iraq, but now that we're there we have to win the peace.

The next (e.g., TODAY)--when pushed by the President to say whether or not he'd vote for war in Iraq even with the hindsight of no WMD found to date--Kerry says he'd still have voted for war with Iraq, but, dang-it, he would have had a plan to win the peace.

This lack of uh. . . consistency. . . is really going to humiliate him eventually. Is he against the Iraq war or not? I may be as confused as Candidate Kerry before he walks out onto a campaign rally stage.

Hoorah for the advisors that pushed the President to force the issue. The fact is that Iraq was a reasonable and strategic move on the part of a nation that must consider its national interests first, even if feigning, fair-weathered friends don't stand by us because their hands are dipping into the blood-soaked coffers of a madman. Even without WMD, which was NOT the only justification for war by far, we'd still be in Iraq. Democrats or Republicans. It would have happened--even if the dream, the fantasy, the distant and ill-conceived hope of a would-be Kerry White House were a reality.

He said so himself.