GUEST,

I didn't agree with Kerry on the war. I don't have amnesia about it, but I'd rather have Kerry in the White House than Bush. I think it's an emergency situation, Bush has to go, and I think it's the wrong year to make a statement by supporting a more progressive candidate who can't win.

I respect your right to vote your way, however.

What I was pointing out was that the article claimed Kerry was inconsistent, and he wasn't. Before the vote in the senate, he said "This is what Bush has promised, and that's why I'm voting this way." In the debate, he said, "this is what Bush promised, and that's why I voted that way." Those two statements were consistent, not inconsistent.

Countering your own argument, Kerry's broken promise to speak out could NOT have led to the war, because (follow me here) he had no cause to speak out until the war had already been started. It was starting the the war on false pretenses that he would have spoken out about.

Third, my point again (which you ignored): how do we know he did not speak out? How do we know he did not call George Bush and call him a lying bastard? The reporter simply ASSUMED "speaking out" meant "speaking out in a form that a reporter would hear." Most of the speaking that Senators do goes under the journalistic radar. So there is no evidence he broke any promise at all.