Can anyone really consider voting for John Kerry after this statement?

In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Moqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

What was he thinking? Anything beyond taking a contrary position to Bush? Read Captain Ed's post.

UPDATE: Captain Ed's commenter "Bitter Mastermind" thinks that he has the Captain over a barrel with an "a-ha" moment; the complete contextual Kerry quote:

John Kerry: Well, ah, it's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq, and, well, lemme change the term legitimate -- when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days, and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment, so it creates it's own set of needs in order to deal with the possible future spread of terrorism. But at the same time if it's unaccompanied by a broader set of moves to try to broaden our own base in Iraq, I just think it asks for great difficulty. As I have said since day one, what you need is to minimize the reality and the perception of an American occupation, you need to minimize the targeting of American soldiers, and that is done by maximizing the sharing of responsibility on the ground, which is also how you minimize the cost to the American people.

I disagree - what the Hell is all of that prevarication about shutting down "a voice?" What does that entire statement even mean? Aligning yourself with "both Hamas and Hezbollah" is a "sort of terrorist alignment?" Are you kidding me? Call a spade a spade, Senator. This "voice" is currently leading an armed insurrection against the United States and killing US military personnel. And Kerry's "voice" is exactly the kind of leadership that we DO NOT NEED in this war.

Regarding the main thrust of his muddled point, about minimizing America's profile to achieve a successful transition to Democracy, Kerry does have an argument. This is the one of the best reasons to consider a candidate other than Bush: that new blood will give countries that oppose us political cover to re-engage the US without completely alienating their electorate. BUT - this is a temporary fix to chronically disparate interests, and it is something that is easier ruminated about during the course of a Presidential campaign than it is accomplished in the long term. The notion that Kerry can somehow wave a magic wand and steer French, German, Russian and Chinese interests closer to the interests of a successful America is an unrealistic, throwaway argument. Superior form will not win the day when huge economic and strategic motivations are at odds with American foreign policy. I just don't think that he can make it happen, and even if he could, there is no easy argument that it is an acceptable trade-off to embrace a President that cannot even label a radical Imam what he is: a power-grasping public enemy of the United States.

Identify the threats. Snuff them out. Period. this is not a poli-sci debate taking place in the vacuum of John Kerry's mind; this is the real, live, nasty world.

UPDATE: My oh my that was a muddled penultimate paragraph - sometimes ad hoc blogging is a flawed endeavor ;-)