As Senator Kerry escalates his attacks on President Bush, one of the most illuminating documents turns out to be his remarks to the Senate on his decision to turn against funding the GIs in the field in Iraq. These are recorded in the Congressional Record of October 17, 2003. They are fascinating for the abjectness of the doublespeak. The archliberal from Massachusetts doesn’t want to come right out and say he’s turned against the war. So he goes through a long, meandering disquisition, as follows:

First he asserts that it is “critical” that “we succeed in Iraq.” But, he says, it is important to do the job the “right way.” He wants a way that “best protects our troops on the ground” and that also “enhances our security” and also that shields the American taxpayer from “undue burden.” It is noteworthy that the burden of paying for GIs in the middle of a war is about the only outlay that Michael Dukakis’s ex-lieutenant governor has ever reckoned was “undue.”

“I support our troops in Iraq — and their mission,” the Senator insists, for he he just can’t bring himself to say forthrightly that he has turned against the war and thinks it’s all a mistake. He avers that he is “prepared to spend whatever it takes to win the peace.” But he wants responsible spending, meaning “greater internationalization and burden sharing.”After some talk about “transparency and accountability,” he complains about how the costs are distributed. He wants them paid by “Americans who can best afford to pay.”

So, he says, “I cannot vote” for the $87 billion supplemental war budget the president sent up to the Hill. He reckons we “need more countries sharing the burden” and “more troops on the ground providing security.” He complains of the lack of fairness. He says that attacks on the Americans are “becoming more lethal and more sophisticated.” He complains about the administration’s “go-it-alone

policy” that has “turned American liberators into occupiers in the eyes of many Iraqis.” It is the American go-it-alone policy, he suggests, that “has created a terrorist presence in Iraq where none previously existed” and “undermined the legitimacy of our efforts.”

This is not a “stay the course” speech. It is the opposite.”We cannot continue on this course,” Mr. Kerry says. “The stakes are too high — for our troops, for the Iraqi people, for the region, and for American security.” Parse the logic of it. He then rattles on about the “need to internationalize both the military and civilian sides of the occupation” on the theory that this would protect the GIs. He wants to give the United Nations a “central role.”

Then he asks what the $87 billion is for. He answers that much of it — $66 billion — is “for our troops on the ground”and the rest for “reconstruction of basic services.”

He complains about the money for reconstruction of services. He demands to know, what is the urgency? He then complains that health care and education are under-funded at home. And then the junior senator from Massachusetts, who had voted for the war, becomes one of 12 members of the Senate to vote against the authorization of funding for our GIs in the thick of the fight.