Now Kerry is in favor of the Iraq war, would have voted for it without WMDs.

Bush, whose administration cited the weapons and alleged terrorist links to justify the war, challenged the Democratic presidential nominee on Friday at a campaign rally in Stratham, N.H., to tell voters whether intelligence disclosures since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 would have altered his position on the war. ''My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. ''The American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

So Kerry answered, and boy is this cool or what? And from the DNC mouthpiece the New York Times owned Boston Globe.

John F. Kerry for the first time yesterday said he still would have voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, even if he had known in October 2002 that US intelligence was flawed, that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But then voted not to fund it??? His criticism of no body armor for our troops or bad weapons doesn't make any sense. He was on the intel oversight committee and sat on his ass.

So why vote for him at all? While his war position is one I can clearly support, I'd have to be a Bush hater to respect the guy. It's really a lesson in public reactions when we see the stink being raised over the lie Kerry has been spinning about being in Cambodia when he clearly could not have been. Gardner quoted in this New York Post piece says:

The anti-Kerry veterans say a large sign along the river at the border warned against entry and that a large landing craft was stationed there "to ensure that no one could cross the border."

He could not have been across that blockade and had to know he could not have crossed it without knowing it and by directly disobeying orders. I think people are suddenly finding reasons NOT to vote for Kerry, not just because of the Cambodian tissue of lies but these atop all the others. For some far more damaging quotes go here. It is just too much. Michael Moore, the New York Times, moveon.org, the slime balls from Hollywood, and the many other DNC liars are helping to do Kerry in. It just seems like every Left charge against Bush has been proven false, not by Bush and his communications dunce team, but by events.

Bush didn't lead us into war for oil or any other bogus reason.
He tried to use the UN, France and Germany but failed, mainly because of France's oil interests with Saddam. Just as France is now letting the slaughter in the Sudan take place because they have oil contracts with the Arabs there.
Negotiations were clearly impossible as the EU/Britain vs Iran "talks??" have shown.
Joe Wilson is the liar, not Bush.
Clinton is responsible for North Korea having nukes.
Clarke has proven to be every bit as slimy as the old Clinton gang, seemingly angry only because his recommendations were not followed.
Michael Moore is simply the latest in the long line of cinematic propagandists, and the least talented; Eisenstein, Goebbels, Reifenstahl, together with writers like Brecht, Odetts, and the rest of the commies were far better.
The Media Elite gangbang is backfiring.
Abu Grahaib is proving to be just a bunch of local MPs going over the edge.
The "War on Terror" is clearly going our way.

And on and on. So, where's the meat in the Left campaign? Socialized Medicine, nationalizing the drug companies, abortion on demand, gun control, control of job exportation (without a plan), the creation of ten million jobs (doing what?), combined with snappy Hollywood slogans, bogus concerts, and propaganda movies (Manchurian Candidate) don't cut it. I am now going to both work and vote for Bush. I'll still try to be honest when looking at some of the things Bush has or hasn't done but there is no way I can respect Kerry. No way.