Inkeherrynce

I recently coined the word "Inkehherynce" to mean "Kerry Incoherence". Kerry's speech at Temple University today is a good example of this. Here are some excerpts, appropriately reordered to illustrate the inkeherrynce of Kerry's positions on Iraq:

One position is identical to that of the administration. Namely to win the war on militant Islamist terror by supporting democracy throughout the region, including, necessarily, staying the course to defeat tyranny and our common enemies in Iraq:

we see our enemies striking -- in Spain, in Turkey, in Indonesia, in Kenya, and now every day -- in the most despicable and gruesome ways in Iraq

and

we will promote the development of free and democratic societies throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Millions of people there share our values of human rights, and our hopes for a better life for the next generation. They are facing their own struggle at home against the forces of fanaticism and militancy. They are our natural allies. Their lost trust in our intentions must be restored. We must reach out to them and yes we must always promote democracy. I will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change - not just for our sake but for their own survival.

and

For al Qaeda, this war is a struggle for the heart and soul of the Muslim world. We will win this war only if the terrorists lose that struggle. We will win when ordinary people from Nigeria to Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia know they have more to live for than to die for. We will win when they once again see America as the champion, not the enemy, of their legitimate yearning to live in just and peaceful societies. We will win when we stop isolating ourselves and start isolating our enemies. The world knows the difference between empty promises and genuine commitment.

and

I will wage this war relentlessly with a single-minded determination: to capture or kill the terrorists, crush their movement and free the world from fear.

Kerry's other position, simultaneously expressed, is that it is wrong to fight tyranny and terrorism in Iraq:

George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Osama bin Laden the priority.

But Kerry's other position is that even though the war in Iraq is not the real war on terror, he will finish the job anyway, whatever that means:

As president, I will finish the job in Iraq and refocus our energies on the real war on terror.

and

We need to end this confusion. We need national leaders who will face reality - not only in Iraq but in the war on terror. And we need a president who has no doubt that the war on terror can and must be won.

Ending the confusion is a good idea, but along these same lines, John Edwards yesterday called the war in Iraq a "quagmire". House Democrat Nancy Pelosi said last week that

"It's clear that this administration didn't know what it was getting into, or else they grossly misrepresented the facts to the American people ... in either case, staying the course is not an option."

Kerry himself said the other day that

we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years

There are many ways to mix and match Kerry's statements with those of his running mate and his chief ally in the House of Representatives. The most coherent position I can synthesize from all of this is to

win the real war on terror by promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East, except in Iraq where we will win the false war against the terrorists there by making a genuine commitment to finish the quagmire without staying the course

Inkeherrynce.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 24, 2004 11:50 AM