John Kerry argues that if he were president, he’d be better at bringing allies to our side than President Bush. But when making that argument, Kerry frequently makes insulting comments about our existing allies.

This makes me wonder: if being a current ally of the United States results in derision from Candidate Kerry, how exactly would that make a President Kerry more adept at attracting allies?

The same sort of logical consistency is apparent here:

• In 1991, President George H. W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry cites that war as a model to be followed. But in 1991, John Kerry voted against the war.

• In 2003, President George W. Bush calls for war against Saddam Hussein. He creates a coalition and gets congressional approval. The U.N. tells Saddam Hussein to comply with its Security Council resolutions or else. He does not comply, and the United States leads the way in supplying the “or else”. In 2004, John Kerry calls it “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Yet for some reason, when it came up for a vote, John Kerry voted for the war.

Maybe we shouldn’t think about complicated stuff like this. You see, John Kerry is smart enough to understand these intricate issues. That’s why he should be president and not any of us. If we fail to grasp John Kerry’s positions, it is only because we are insufficiently intellectual and wholly incapable of comprehending the complexity of Kerry’s thinking. That’s basically the argument Teresa Heinz Kerry made when she said “only an idiot” would disagree with her husband on health care.

Listen to John Kerry on a day-to-day basis. Do you hear much of anything other than criticism? We know all about what John Kerry is against—it seems to be whatever President Bush is for—but do we really know much of anything about any of Kerry’s plans?

So, what would Kerry do in the White House? Without an opposing candidate to calibrate himself against, how would Kerry determine what he believes? What are his default positions? Well, he shares a state (and staff) with Ted Kennedy, and his Senate votes reflect that. Perhaps that’s why Kerry talks more about four months in Vietnam than two decades in the U.S. Senate.

Want an idea what four years of a Kerry presidency would be like? Just look to his campaign today. The Kerrys apparently believe that people who disagree with them are idiots. (In all fairness, only Teresa actually said that, but watching John Kerry all these months, I’m not convinced he disagrees.)

And if we voters are idiots, it relieves John Kerry of the burden of articulating his plans, if any. We simply wouldn’t get the nuance. But if we can’t decipher Kerry’s plans, neither can al Qaeda. Therein may lie the true strategic brilliance of John Kerry: after four years of Kerry in the White House, Osama bin Laden will be so damn confused, he just might forget who his enemy is.