The second debate

The president looked much better in last night's debate than he did in the first, while Kerry looked tired and seemed as though he were only repeating his own talking points without saying anything of substance. Kerry continues to amaze with his ability to confuse his own statements, while insisting that he is being consistent.

For instance, there was this response from Kerry on Saddam Hussein: "Well, let me tell you straight up. I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe that Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat." Then, a few short minutes later, he was asked about the threat posed by a potential nuclear-armed Iran. His response: "And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat."

So Kerry's logic (and his allegedly "consistent" position) boils down to this: Saddam Hussein was a threat. Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. There was no threat in Iraq.

It's not just that Kerry can be caught in an occasional mis-statement during a debate. His entire platform on the war in Iraq has been dismantled by events, and by his own statements. His plan has been to bring in other countries to "share the burden," while at the same time reducing the American troop presence in Iraq. France and Germany, the two allies to whom he has always been referring, have stated that even if Kerry is elected, they will not commit troops, and Kerry conceded this point earlier this week. So what is his Plan B? There isn't one.