In preparation for upcoming presidential debates, Democratic candidate Sen. John “I was in Vietnam” Kerry and his lackeys have used four talking points to respond to any question about allowing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein:

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry’s communications director, said “Vietnam” Kerry “believes that (invading Iraq) was the right thing to do.”

Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said that even if Kerry had known about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he still would have voted to authorize the war “in all probability.”

Exhibiting the decisiveness requisite for great leaders, Kerry also has said he “might” have gone to war given the benefit of hindsight.

Now, Kerry said President George W. Bush committed to a “wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”

As is typical of Kerry, he can’t get his story straight. We’re going to war. We’re going to war “in all probability.” We “might” go to war. We aren’t going to war. I could listen to a Stephen Hawking lecture and have a better idea of what’s going on.

Indeed, liberals are the only known species not to suffer from rudimentary forms of cognitive dissonance. Without batting an eye, liberals can promise stronger homeland security by tying the hands of the nation’s investigators, guarantee a stronger economy by sucking consumer dollars into a huge bureaucracy and perform a Clintonian ballet and take both sides of major military conflicts (until Kerry manages to take four sides).

In deference to the lying left, soldier Kerry seems genuinely dedicated to quickly and decisively ending the conflict in Iraq. In a useless attempt to garner military votes, the senator told National Public Radio he promises to bring troops home “within a year from now.” Within six months of taking office, Kerry claimed, “we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq.”

Americans bewildered by the guarantee, Jamie Rubin was asked how Kerry can make such a bold pledge. Employing the standard rainbow-glittered, liberal mantra of (trumpets sound) “multilateralism,” Rubin claimed that Kerry could reduce troop deployment “because of the new credibility we would bring to the White House, because leaders would see cooperation with the United States as a plus rather than a minus … We will be in a better position to get help in terms of troops and money.” (Translation: we’re going to call the French.)

Curiously, Kerry has also made a point of demeaning the immense coalition Bush has gathered for the Iraq invasion. Telling a group of West Virginians the money spent on the Iraq invasion could have “gone to schools, could have gone to health care, could have gone to prescription drugs, could have gone to our Social Security,” Kerry called the president’s “coalition of the willing,” “the phoniest thing I ever heard.”

So this is the plan: demean our allies by calling them “phonies” and then beg for their assistance. This is going to put us in a “better position to get help.” (I don’t recall Doug Brinkley explaining this one.)

And by the way, since when did gutless Kerry develop the gaucherie to label a true patriot like Tony Blair a “phony”?

Just for the record: “Vietnam” Kerry votes for the Patriot Act and now guarantees to dismantle it. Kerry calls the War on Terror “basically a manhunt,” and then, two weeks later, decides that “this war isn’t just a manhunt.” Kerry declares he opposes litmus tests for judicial nominees and then tells a group of cat-petting feminists that only judges who support Roe v. Wade will get his support.

Kerry votes for the North American Free Trade Agreement. Kerry bashes it. Kerry wants a stop to the double taxation of dividends. Kerry wants to continue the double taxation of dividends. Kerry thinks race discrimination (aka affirmative action) is “divisive.” Kerry claims he never called affirmative action programs “divisive.”

Kerry bemoans new wildfire. Later, Kerry scorches dry woods with a flamethrower to put out wildfire.

Notwithstanding the endless policy contradictions, my first question is how soldier Kerry gets out of bed in the morning. “Left side? No, right side. Maybe if I threaten a legitimate use of getting up the right side to the left side Ö ” No wonder the world’s proudest veteran has missed more than two-thirds of all Senate votes while campaigning: He’s still debating breakfast cereals at 3 in the afternoon.

Kerry couldn’t slip into a deeper malaise of contradictions, oxymoron and flagrant hypocrisy. Every military, social and political problem requires Ted Kennedy double-speaking dudgeons for the Democratic presidential candidate. Is there any other explanation for why Kerry told the Washington Post in 2003, “I wish they had a delete button on LexisNexis”?

Only Kerry can call himself a liar and have even his opponents flabbergasted. Conservatives would be positively befuddled by such a self-indictment. Does that mean he’s a truthful guy? Does he mean he isn’t a truthful person? Does that mean he “might” be a truthful person? Does he mean he could be a truthful guy “in all probability”?

You know what it means: For once, Kerry would be caught telling the truth.

Darren Bernard welcomes comments at [email protected].