It seems Bush can do nothing right, if we listen to Kerry who says that the President's plan to realign the military and shift 70,000 troops to U.S. soil was "vaguely stated" and "hastily announced."

Did you hear what I just said? (Okay, wise guy. Did you read what I just typed?)

Not only did the President not explain his plan in enough detail during his initial announcement, but he didn't slowly prepare us over a long period of time by hints and foreshadowing. He just blurted it out, said, "here's what I'm gonna do," without any regard for how his opposition might react.

Doesn't the President know that he's a conservative? that he's supposed to favor the stiff old status quo that doesn't work anymore? that Kerry is going to make our dilapidated old military 'state of the art?' (John Edwards actually said that -- I'm not making it up). Doesn't Bush know that he's not allowed to bring troops home because that's something Kerry wants to use in his "I can do anything better than you" routine?

"Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. "But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way."

But hold on just a second. It seems that Kerry is using the supposed vagueness as capital to twist the issue to his advantage. If the President's announcement was so vague and hasty, how does Kerry know that this is not the time or the way? How does he know what the time or the way are?

In pretending to be confused about the details Kerry can claim that this new plan is reckless and threatens the safety of our troops who are in the middle of a dangerous and far-ranging military campaign. But the truth is that "[t]he plan, to be implemented over 10 years, would not affect the 125,000 U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq." Not to mention the 100,000 currently stationed in Asia, or the 100,000 in Europe. We're talking ten years here.

There is nothing hasty about a ten year plan. And so Kerry resorts once again to word games. Rather than attack the plan (which he claims is unclear, though he supported the overhaul as recently as August 1st) he attacks the way in which the President announced the plan.

Kerry, to be sure, would have made a better announcement.

Can anyone take that seriously?

Oh, for the record: I believe Kerry supported giving the President the authority to plan an overhaul of the armed forces, but only as a last resort.