"Foragainst"

David Brooks has done the research into John Kerry's statements regarding the last few wars and conflicts the U.S. has had since the end of the Cold War. The research confirms what we already know about Kerry's "foragainst" postures.

I thought research of this kind would have lead to evidence that Kerry made different remarks on the same issue at different times. What the evidence shows, however, is that Kerry has taken both sides (or tried to) simultaneously. Clearly, he can't make decisions easily.

Democrats will try to characterize Republicans pointing these things out as "attack" politics or some such thing, but pointing to someone's record is a perfectly legitimate tactic.

If the Madrid bombings are the work of Al Qaeda, Kerry's wavering should look much worse. And the GOP shouldn't be shy about calling attention to his record and his inability to recognize the threat posed to the U.S. and the civilized world. Additionally, if Madrid was done by Al Qaeda, it will become increasingly difficult for the Dems to argue that the U.S. didn't have significant allies against Iraq. If Al Qaeda is responsible, it would mean that we had allies significant enough to warrant our enemy attacking them.

Josh Marshall thinks that now is the time for Kerry to hit Bush on national security. Marshall seems to think that Kerry can win on national security, but he never says anything about what Kerry should say. The fact is that there is nothing Kerry could say, given his dismal record and the possibility that Madrid is the work of Al Qaeda.