We need a reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government" in Iraq, Sen. John F. Kerry said in December. "That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country..."

Contrast that with what Mr. Kerry told reporters last week: "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here...is not whether or not that's a full democracy."

Mr. Kerry now says democracy is optional.

"Iraq," Mr. Bush said at his news conference last week, "will either be a peaceful democratic country or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terrorists, and a threat to America and to the world."

Mr. Kerry now argues that there is a third option. But what would that be? "I can't tell you what it's going to be," he said to reporters covering his campaign. "That stability can take several forms." True; in the Middle East, there is the stability of Islamic dictatorship, the stability of military dictatorship and the stability of monarchical dictatorship. In Lebanon, there is the stability of permanent foreign occupation and de facto ethnic partition. None is in the interest of the United States; all have helped create the extremism and terrorism against which this nation is now at war.

We believe a successful political outcome is still possible; others disagree. But Mr. Kerry's shift on such a basic question after just a few months is troubling and mistaken. [/b]

Originally posted by Jolly:
It would not be the first time in our republic that a man was elected ( or re-elected, in this case) where a large faction of the public may not agree with his views, but admired his principles. [/b]