John Kerry once again shows that he thinks any stick is good enough to beat Bush with, even if it's a wimpy twig covered with little thorns that will hurt the bearer more than the recipient. This time it's with the troop movements. If Bush hadn't done this, it would have been bad for other reasons. It's the same sort of thing as with those who criticized him for the seven minutes of remaining calm with the children in the school on 9/11. If he'd rushed out of the room, a different stick would have been used to beat him. There are enough sticks to go around for any possible decision Bush might make, it seems.
Nearly every policy seems to be a good idea but is the wrong time and way for Kerry. I think I've figured out what the right time and way to do things would be. If the president doing it is a Democrat, it would be the right time, otherwise not. If the way involves Bush doing it, it's the wrong way. It would take too much work to go through every issue he's done this sort of thing with, but I've heard enough of them now that I sense a trend, and I'm not usually good at seeing trends until it's dead obvious.
The other thing that seems dead obvious to me is that any time anything negative comes out, the timing is suspicious. It doesn't matter when the time is. It doesn't matter if there's nothing going on. The timing is still suspicious. They try to find the nearest event that could raise suspicions, and since it's a political campaign there are plenty of events to go around.
Whenever a theory is irrefutable, it should raise eyebrows. If Bush's being bad depends on merely the fact that he did it, as the "any stick is good enough to beat Bush" attitude demonstrates, then the criticisms lose their content. If no policy can be good but is bad simply because of when it happens, that has the same problems. We don't know what Kerry thinks is good, and we don't know what he'd recommend until after Bush does the opposite. If the timing is always suspicious merely because there's some event nearby when an election year always has such events, the claim that timing is suspicious ceases to mean anything. There's no way to refute any of these argumentation styles, because they wait until something happens and then declare it bad simply because of who did it. I realize that there are things in this campaign that aren't like this, but I've seen enough of this to make me sick of having to listen to anything Kerry says about Bush. So much of it doesn't mean anything.