The tone of the article really surprised me. It seemed to be written by a genuinely fair reporter who was trying to tell an accurate story and get the differences between Kerry and Bush right. I give the NYT a single kudo for this.
This is the second Times article in a week to accurately portray Kerry as a dangerous *ssh*le. What's going on over there?
After reading it carefully I understand why JFK is so reluctant to clarify his position on terror. At best it's naive and laughable. It's the French position without the benefit of bribe money from the Oil for Castles Program.
The fact that Kerry's polling over 25% is troubling. That he's a viable Presidential contender is extremly dangerous for America.