It's not so much that John Kerry's campaign statements are questionable that they are diametrically hypocritical. Here's the latest in what Quentin Hardy calls John Kerry's "optimistic" message:

John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting, challenged the Bush administration Saturday to reimburse the families of U.S. troops "who had to buy the body armor" needed for protection in Iraq.

"If I am president, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people and our vital interests," the Massachusetts senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

"But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support."

True to form, Kerry is exactly the politician who is not at all prepared to outfit the United States military. Sufficient body armor to overseas troops would not benefit armed forces lacking the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, the Trident missile system completely; with inadequate strengths of the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet. John Kerry supported these reductions and abolitions. (List taken from a Barbara Stock article via QandO).

Kerry's touting a bill for more body armor. If only his gesture, taken in the context of years of trying to weaken the military, were more than - as Mickey Kaus put it - comically transparent calculating opportunism.

PUTTING THE COMEDY INTO OPPORTUNISM: According to Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign chairman Marc Racicot, one of John Kerry's attempts at military downsizing included the depletion of body armor stocks.