Randy Beers, national security adviser to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), stated in response to President Bush's campaign's questioning of Kerry's stance on the Iraq War in an August Associated Press report, "the issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, the issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops, and without a plan to win the peace."

If that is the case then where does Kerry stand on these particular issues? Why don't we let Kerry's own words speak for themselves?

Have the spineless French and Russians forgotten this comment Kerry made? On CNN's "Crossfire" on Nov. 12, 1997, Kerry said, "Where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq"

Might they be recalling their endorsement of the senator now?

In a Sept. 6, 2002 New York Times op-ed piece entitled "We Still Have a Choice on Iraq," Kerry stated, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

What? Go into Iraq without the support of the all-powerful United Nations? Perish the thought!

When it came to funding our brave men and women fighting over in Iraq, on Sept. 14, 2003, while on CBS' "Face the Nation," Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now."

Then Kerry voted against the appropriations bill that same day. Both he and his running mate Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) were among the scant 12 Democratic senators who opposed the appropriations bill to give our troops the supplies they need to finish the job in Iraq.

Thankfully Kerry clarified — or at least attempted to clarify — his last minute decision to vote against the bill by stating on March 16, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

Then in his speech at the Democratic National Convention on July 26, Kerry switched his position on funding our troops once again, saying, "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."

This scathing comment on the Bush administration from a guy who voted against funding supplies for our troops. Wait, he did support it until he voted against it. We must be fair about this after all.

And what's his plan on winning the peace? According to an Aug. 9 ABC News report by Patricia Wilson entitled "Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq," Kerry said, "My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us."

Sounds like another Vietnam to me! I guess he learned nothing from his four months of service recording footage and ranking up purple-heart bandages.

To even the most hard-core Kerry supporter, this candidate is in a predicament of his own making. But, as Bush has kindly noted to him, there are still two more months for Kerry to change his position once again.

Kastner is a freshman political science major.

Click here to comment on this viewpoint on the Tribune Forum.