Rather than get bogged down again in a protracted argument about the UN, failed resolutions, WMD, etc..., I mean only to talk about Kerry's position here.
He says the Iraq war was a mistake - both in its inception and prosecution - but, if elected, he will train the Iraqis better, get more allies to contribute, spend more money, send more troops, and get them home sooner. I got that right?

My point would be: If he feels the war was a mistake, then he should say that he will withdraw troops immediately. Why? Because the commander-in-chief cannot commit more troops or attract allies and their troops to a cause that he feels is in error. Obviously therefore, Kerry must recognize (despite low brow political rhetoric to the contrary) that what is happening in Iraq is in some way critical to the interests of the US, our security and that of future generations. Why else would he commit more troops to the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, etc...? If he feels it's wrong then quit - don't send more of our guys off to die.

He was very hawkish, from what I saw, in the primaries against Dean, et al. But his position on the war (the one we saw last night) has been carefully formulated with polls in mind, to attract the anti-war and anti-Bush voters, yet still appeal to swing voters who feel the war is justified. It is a lawyer's position. Maybe I'm being overly ideological, but I would like my President to stand for something other than his own political gain.

I think the notion that Kerry would prosecute the war better than the current administration is absurd. Does anybody actually believe that?

I think that Vietnam was a totally different ball of wax. I'm not sure how I feel about that war. But from what I saw of Kerry's testimony before Congress, accusing his fellow soldiers of widespread atrocities despite his narrow view of the war, he does not understand the proper way to dissent in time of war.