John Kerry: Where were you in 2004?

For those who have not been regular readers of this blog (which means most of the civilized world), I hereby inform you that I am no John Kerry fan (see A few post-election thoughts). Today's Washington Post has an article that further illustrates my dislike of him.

The article reports on a speech Kerry gave at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall in which he was talking tough about Iraq. My stomach started to churn when I read this paragraph:

Yesterday's address was the latest move in Kerry's shadow presidential campaign, launched in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat by President Bush. In a series of speeches, guest columns and television appearances, Kerry has sought to right what many Democrats regard as the defects of that race by outlining a clear exit strategy for Iraq and vowing to fight back against GOP attacks on his and other Democrats' patriotism. Kerry's aggressive attitude is also aimed at wooing liberal voters for a potential presidential bid in 2008.

The end of the article contained a quote from the Republican National Committee:

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said..."We do question John Kerry's motives, considering his eagerness to engage in political theatrics as he ponders a presidential run."

Things must be getting chilly in Hades because I agree with this assessment. Kerry had every opportunity to take such a strong stand in 2004, and instead he didn't do a damn thing. Now that the situation in Iraq is still horrible, Bush's numbers keep getting worse, and the public is getting increasingly unhappy, Kerry has decided it is safe to start talking tough.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. From the article:

Although Kerry acknowledged that the wars in Vietnam and Iraq are not mirror images, he said that the conflicts are "now converging in too many tragic respects."

Among the similarities, according to Kerry: The justification for each war was "based on official deception"; the attempt to cast the struggles as part of a larger global conflict was a "misperception"[.]

(emphasis added). During the 2004 campaign, both of these matters were very clear--as in there was plenty of evidence establishing them--but Kerry said nothing. Indeed, when asked, he stated that the problem was bad intelligence and then blamed everything on the CIA. THAT WAS EXACTLY THE POSITION BUSH TOOK! By taking that position, Kerry missed a great opportunity to differentiate himself from Bush AND he threw away any chance he had to hammer Bush where he was most vulnerable.

On the one hand, I guess I should be glad that another Democrat is speaking up, but on the other hand, Kerry's actions seem to be primarily self-serving. The 2004 campaign showed that his priority was achieving his personal ambition of being President. Because of that I did not trust him during the 2004 campaign, and I do not trust him now. If he was not considering a run in 2008, I might feel differently.

Compare Kerry to the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. Love him or hate him, Kennedy is willing to take strong, controversial stands, and he does not sit by to see which way the wind is blowing so that he can take advantage of it to serve his personal ambition. Kerry still seems to be someone who is first and foremost out for himself.