Weekly Standard Editor and Project For a New American Century guru William Kristol is spouting the latest GOP talking point: Kerry is disgraceful for criticizing Bush and thus is unfit to be the President.

Did we become a fascist state when I wasn't looking?

Not only does Kristol opine about Kerry's criticsms, he outright lies about Kerry as well:

We really don't know what a President John Kerry would do about Iraq. His flip-flops about the war, his inconsistencies, the ambiguity of his current position (win or withdraw?) -- all of these mean we can only guess about a Kerry presidency. He would probably be inclined to get out of Iraq as soon as possible; it might be the case, however, that as president he would nonetheless find himself staying and fighting. Who knows?

Wrong Bill. We know exactly what Kerry would do. Why? He's told us again and again. In fact he told us just last Friday at Temple University. And please don't pretend you don't know about what Kerry said. If you don't, you're not doing your job. And anyone that follows you knows you're simply too smart for that.

And then, Kristol let's the other shoe drop:

What we do know is this: Kerry and his advisers have behaved disgracefully this past week. That behavior is sufficient grounds for concern about his fitness to be president.

And what heinous act does Kristol accuse Kerry of? Kerry didn't say anything "supportive of the President" after Bush's speech to the UN on Friday. What exactly was Kerry supposed to say? "Hey George...way to go. Nice job lying to the UN and blowing sunshine up their skirts on Iraq. Excellent con job you've got going there, man." Give me a break.

What else has a bee in Kristol's bonnet? Kerry dared say that Kofi Annan has a better idea of what's going on in Iraq than does Bush. Since Bush doesn't know that we can't have free and fair elections in Iraq and that the Afghan Army ISN'T in Najaf, what evidence does Kristol have to show that Bush actually does know more than Annan??

And then of course, there's Kerry's comments about Ayad Allawi. Kerry said that Allawi was in the country to "put the best face" possible on the situation in Iraq. From all accounts, Kerry's right. That's exactly what Allawi did when he was here. Allawi outright lied about the situation to the American people. But who is Kristol worried about? Kerry.

And then at the end of his hatchet job on Kerry, Kristol goes on to actually cite part of Kerry's plan, when he first asserted that noone knew what Kerry's plan is:

There is some chance, after all, that John Kerry will be president in four months. If so, what kind of situation will he have created for himself? France will smile on him, but provide no troops. Those allies that have provided troops, from Britain and Poland and Australia and Japan and elsewhere, will likely recall how Kerry sneered at them, calling them "the coerced and the bribed." The leader of the government in Iraq, upon whom the success of John Kerry's Iraq policy will depend, will have been weakened before his enemies and ours -- and will also remember the insult. Is this really how Kerry wants to go down in history: Willing to say anything to try to get elected, no matter what the damage to the people of Iraq, to American interests, and even to himself?

It's clear here that Kristol understands that Kerry wants to internationalize the situation in Iraq. And Kristol appears convinced that because Bush has refused to internationalize the effort, that Kerry can't. Somehow it's not very convincing to me that Bush's ineptitude and arrogance is catching to Kerry. And the remark about damaging the people of Iraq and American interests? How bad could it get? Could Kerry invade a country that was no military threat to the US based on trumped up intelligence..causing most of the entire slate of US allies to spurn us?