Steven Den Beste has a long commentary on a recent Kerry interview in Time. His post is, as usual, pretty comprehensive. He mostly talks about how Kerry's position on the war has been pretty all over the place, but the current retoric is pretty baseless. Here's a sample:

I myself had figured out the most important reason we had to invade Iraq long before the Senate vote, and I don't have access to the kind of information that Kerry would have been able to see as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I also don't have a staff.

I put in the effort to figure it out because I'm a citizen, and in service of my hobby. For Kerry, it's his job to figure out those kinds of things. If he really was misled in October of 2002, it proves that he's either gullible, stupid, or was derelict in carrying out his duties as a US Senator. Regardless of which it was, it would demonstrate that he was not qualified to be President.

It's entirely possible that some of what he's said has been true. If so, I can't shake the feeling that's only the result of coincidence. What I see is equivocation and pandering: Kerry seems to say whatever he thinks has the best chance of avoiding alienating voters. If that happens to be what he really thinks, so much the better.

Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies – if any – are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for.

Amen.