Will someone please explain to me what John Kerry really thinks.

This is what he said the VFW today:

I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way.

This is what Kerry said two weeks ago on ABC News:

"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps."

So he was for the reduction of troops before he was against the reduction of troops? Or is it just that Bush's plan won't be as "effective".

Let’s be clear: the President’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror. And in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel.

So it's better to spend more money to "Expand America's Active Duty Forces by 40,000 to relieve the strain on today's military", which by the way are not to be sent overseas, as opposed to bringing home up to 70,000 personnel? I'll take the extra 30,000 troops and the money savings, thank you very much.

Also, click here for the several pages long vague plan. I guess this is more vague than the Kerry quote from above - "in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps.

This is my favorite line from the VFW speech:

``Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?''

Forget about the Bush administration's belief that the reduction is OK due to new technologies on the battlefiled and a strengthened South Korean army. Does he really think Kim Jong-Il is going to wake up tomorrow and say - now South Korea is undefended - let's invade!

The great thing about Bush is that at least when he misspeaks, you know what he meant. He can say he "wants to inflict great harm on Americans" and you know he meant the exact opposite.

With Kerry, he rarely misspeaks (AND is known to be quite verbose) and you still can't figure out what he believes.

UPDATE from the AP: "As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror," Kerry said. Earlier this month, he used that line - and added a promise to fight a more sensitive war, a bow to diplomacy that Vice President Dick Cheney said smacked of weakness.

Maybe he didn't say what he meant or mean what he said the first time. Last night on "Hardball" Chris Matthews was actually defending Kerry by saying it wasn't fair to call him a "flip-flopper", it's just that he's "wishy-washy". Maybe I'll just start calling John Kerry "Chuck" in honor of Charlie Brown.