In last night's debate -- which John Kerry won hands-down -- George W. Bush continued repeating the talking point that John Kerry was demoralizing our troops and our allies. Here's a tidbit from the first debate:

First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?

Here's another one:

My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a "great diversion."

And a third time:

My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war. What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be: "Please join us in Iraq. We're a grand diversion. Join us for a war that is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time"? I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says, "This is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time."

A fourth time:

Yes, I understand what it means to the commander in chief. And if I were to ever say, "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place," the troops would wonder, "How can I follow this guy?" You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion." It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential that we get it right.

In the first debate, Bush referred to Kerry's "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" statement seven times. In the second debate (yesterday's debate), he referred to that statement six times.

Bush would like to have us believe that Kerry's words will demoralize the American people, American troops, and any allies that we might have. He says that our allies won't follow a person who says this is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." Bush's statement would be true -- if our allies didn't hold that opinion already. The United Nations, the body which we want to have come into Iraq and help with reconstruction, condemned the war. They already know that it's the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Kerry is not telling them anything new; their minds have not been changed. As for the troops, I suspect that after being in Iraq for over two years, they're wondering themselves whether or not this is the right war at the right place at the right time. Kerry is not demoralizing the troops; they've been demoralized already! Merely being in Iraq has done that to them. They don't need Kerry to tell them that they shouldn't be there.

Kerry's plan for getting the allies "back to the table" involves admitting that the war was a mistake and asking for the allies' help in cleaning it up. Is the world safer after the invasion of Iraq? I certainly don't remember people being beheaded on Al-Jazeera every week before we went in there. I suspect the invasion of Iraq has done that. Kerry understands that we cannot reconstruct Iraq alone, and so far, we have been engaged in the functional equivalent of going it alone. Certainly Bush can mouth platitudes about our "coalition of the willing," but when most of the cost -- both human and monetary -- is shouldered by the United States, there's no coalition. It's a coalition in name only, called such so as to please the American people and anyone else out there who can be fooled into believing that this was a multilateral effort.

This was a unilateral effort.

Also, let's talk about the phrase "flip-flop." The word means "to change one's mind," but the connotation of the words "flip" and "flop" bring to mind something like wet spaghetti, something that is not rigid. Something that is weak. The phrase "flip flop" does not merely suggest changing one's mind, but it implies weakness and changing one's mind flippantly for political gain. Rigidity has its merits, but so does flexibility. Bush errs on the side of too much rigidity. In the face of new information -- such as Donald Rumsfeld's admission that there were no weapons of mass destrution in Iraq -- Bush continues on the same course, whether he's wrong or not. The point is that he stays the course. Shakespeare talked about this in Troilus and Cressida, his play about love and war. The story is about the Trojan War, and Hector wants to let Helen go back to Greece, since it's costing too many lives fighting a war to keep her there. Troilus wants to keep her, since he thinks they should fight for the ideal of love. Hector says:

[...] Let Helen go.
Since the first sword was drawn about this question,
Every tithe-soul, 'mongst many thousand dimes,
Hath been as dear as Helen -- I mean, of ours.
If we have lost so many tenths of ours
To guard a thing not ours -- nor worth to us,
Had it our name, the value of one ten --
What merit's in that reason which denies
The yielding of her up? (2.2.16-24)

Troilus responds that the value of Helen is in the King's honor, for if the king were to give her back, it would be dishonorable. He then assails Hector for using "reason" to come to the conclusion that they should send Helen back to Greece:

[...] Manhood and honour
Should have hare [timid] hearts, would they but fat their thoughts
With this crammed reason. Reason and respect [deliberation]
Makes livers pale and lustihood deject. (2.2.46-49)

A man who is "manly" doesn't admit that he's wrong; he forges onward, even if he knows he's wrong, all for the sake of "honor." And anyway, who needs "deliberation" when you can fight a problem out? I bet this Iraq War business saw a resurgence in productions of Troilus and Cressida, since that's exactly what the play's about -- a war entered into for the wrong reasons that must now continue for the sake of continuing, lest the Trojans seem "dishonorable" (although we know that they're going to lose, anyway). I see Bush as doing the same thing: sticking to a plan not because it's the correct plan, but because it's the plan he's been on all along, and to deviate from that plan would make him (and America) appear weak.

To change one's mind in the face of new evidence is not "flip-flopping" at all. It is exactly what it sounds like: changing one's mind in the face of new evidence. The new evidence presented was not available when some person made up his mind about something earlier. If making a decision involves weighing all the evidence on hand and coming to a conclusion, then we must include any new evidence that shows up after the decision is made, for it could be that this evidence would have resulted in a reversal of the original opinion. I thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't for going to war in Iraq, but I thought Saddam was hiding them from inspectors. Now, I'm even less for going to war than I was before after finding out that he never had WMDs; he wasn't hiding them from the inspectors at all. (Most likely, he wouldn't let the inspectors into certain places because he was afraid the inspectors might see the massive human rights violations that were going on.)

But there's something that I will hold Kerry to in absolute terms: last night, he was asked to look into the camera and, in no uncertain terms, pledge that he wouldn't raise taxes for people who make less than $200,000. He did make this pledge, and I'm holding him to it.

The debate last night was great for Kerry; though he and Bush repeated the same talking points from the first debate, Kerry came out looking forceful and confident. Bush looked angry and puny by contrast. I actually think Kerry might win.