Who says a presidential candidate can't be compared to two presidents, just because they are from different parties? That is just silly.

The comparison stands rather well, when you are talking about military hawks, regardless which side the aisle they sit on. The article points out the hypocrisy (or is it delusional thinking) of those who opposed the Iraq war, and now support one of it's staunchest supporters.

The truth of the matter is, Kerry has never opposed the Iraq war, he doesn't now, and he won't if elected.

That poses a real problem for the so-called liberal leftists, who obviously were only opposed to the Iraq war as long as it made Bush look bad/wrong. They were never sincere in their opposition to the war, and were only jumping on the anti-war for the sake of politically expediency.

Just shows how disingenuous liberals actually are, and how conservative people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore have turned out to be too. They've all done a 180 on the war on Iraq, in order to justify supporting Anybody But Bush. They lost all my respect when they did it, too.

At least the Republican conservatives have the guts and fortitude to stick by THEIR principles.

Kerry, the DLC, the Clintonistas--all are every bit as dangerous and disingenuous as Bush/Cheney/Rove, the neo-cons, and the evangelical Christian soldiers.