The NY Times op-ed page today has a piece entitled “Unraveling Kerry’s Iraq Plan“. WizBang amusingly wonders whether it’s even worth it any more, but for you, because we’re buds and all, I’ll unravel the op-ed piece here. Let’s start with the first sentence:

Nobody gets angrier about Senator John Kerry’s complicated position on Iraq than his own supporters.

OK, an inauspicious beginning, that, since they misspell “hopelessly feckless flip-flopping in the political breeze” as “complicated position”. And as for people getting angry about Kerry’s “position” (again, the misspelling - this should be “positions”), it strains the bounds of credulity to suppose that liberals are more angry about Kerry’s pitiful pop-gun attacks on the President vis-a-vis Iraq than those of us who understand what’s at stake (freedom, liberty, peace, etc.) and think that Kerry is, once again, undermining America’s armed forces and putting them at greater risk by projecting weakness and promising to cut-and-run if elected. But let’s continue:

But for all of his current tough talk about Mr. Bush’s “wrong choices,” Mr. Kerry has blurred his message, particularly with his recent statement that he would have voted for the Senate’s war resolution even if he had known that Saddam Hussein had no significant cache of weapons of mass destruction.

“Blurred” - he’s “blurred” his message.

Translation: You see, my friends, Mr. Kerry has a message, a message of truth and goodness and joy and light. It’s just that, well, he’s blurred it, so the poor unwashed aren’t seeing it clearly yet. If they only could - well, then, everything would be going swimmingly, and he wouldn’t be losing in the polls to a simpleton.

Mr. Kerry also basically agrees with the president that it is now necessary to stay the course - something that will require a continued American military presence in Iraq for years.

Well, not so fast. It depends on which day you catch him on whether this is true. I didn’t have access to the actual day this was composed, but I assume it was on an “agrees with the president” day.

It’s no wonder the issue hasn’t provided the Democrats much traction.

And some of you people say the Times never gets anything right any more!

People who are unhappy with the way Iraq is going may be frustrated by Mr. Kerry, but they should direct their real anger at Mr. Bush.

Kerry agrees with Bush. He has blurred his message. Democrats have gotten no “traction” on the “issue” of Iraq (not a war; an “issue”). So people should be mad at Bush! See? If you just follow along carefully, it’s easy to keep up.

Still, voters need a much clearer sense of what Mr. Kerry would do differently.

As does Mr. Kerry.

Much of the Democrats’ counterpolicy for Iraq involves the conviction that as president, Mr. Kerry could still get the broad international support that Mr. Bush failed to rally before the invasion. They also argue that if the administration were willing to offer allies a broader share in reconstruction contracts, the allies would be more willing to help with things like providing financial aid, training security forces and guarding Iraq’s borders.

Translation: The Democrats believe, deep down in their souls, they just believe, that Kerry could get the French and Germans on board, and if you all believe too, and say, “I believe”, then Tinkerbell won’t die! And of course, the way to get the French and Germans on board is to bribe them with reconstruction contracts, so the Democrats will do that, too. It’s OK, of course, for the war to make lots of money for the French and the Germans. But God forbid that Halliburton should get within 10 sovereign states of the rebuilding effort.

None of that would address the need for more international combat troops. That train has left the station, and nations with the capacity to help will be unlikely to sign on for what looks like a very unpromising enterprise, no matter who is in the White House. Still, Mr. Kerry’s proposal is a sensible one.

Translation: Mr. Kerry’s proposal doesn’t even address the issue of more non-US troops, and we shouldn’t pretend that France and Germany are ever going to share the troop load in any meaningful way. It won’t work, it’s too late, and nobody else would get involved now, even for “reconstruction contracts”, and everybody knows it. Still, Mr. Kerry’s proposal is “sensible”.

Many of Mr. Kerry’s other ideas on Iraq are similar to the current administration’s, but he says he’d do a much better job [on lots of stuff].

Translation: Anything Bush can do, Kerry can do better.

Mr. Kerry’s advisers say it is critical to provide security for elections in the Sunni region - without saying that their candidate would go any farther than Mr. Bush in attempting to subdue rebellious towns like Falluja.

Translation: Bush must do more! He must do better! You must elect Kerry! He’ll won’t do any more than Bush!

One thing Mr. Kerry should certainly be stressing is the way Iraq has drained the nation’s attention away from imperative antiterrorism missions.

Ah, an important point here. It is, of course, de rigeur to treat the war in Iraq as having nothing to do with the war on terror. Terrorists are only in Afghanistan, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. Plus, the terrorists are winning in Afghanistan. To wit:

It is outrageous to hear Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney boasting about American successes in Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban is gaining a new foothold in the country, the warlords are in the ascendant and supporters of international terrorism are playing important parts in the American-supported government in Kabul.

Any evidence, please? Even a shred that indicates the “Taliban is gaining a new foothold” in Afghanistan? No, I didn’t think so. But still, it’s outrageous that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney would “boast” about American successes there.

Mr. Kerry should also be pressing the Bush administration to get back into the game when it comes to pushing the Israelis and Palestinians to restart the peace process - a move he is unfortunately reluctant to make, given his anxieties about the Jewish vote in states like Florida.

Translation: It’s just critically important that we harass our only reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, into giving away more concessions to the terrorist leaders who’ve been inciting non-stop violence and agitation against them for 50 years, and who remain publicly sworn to the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the occupying Jews. But then you know how Kerry is - always pandering to the Jews in Florida.

If [Mr. Kerry] sincerely believes that other nations can be brought into the effort there, he should be much more forthright in explaining how he could do it.
…
Given the political corner Mr. Kerry has painted himself into, it’s not surprising that his advisers are urging him to start concentrating on the economy.

At least here I agree 143% with the op-ed. No translation needed here.