A week ago, San Francisco Chronicle Washington Bureau Chief Marc Sandalow took the unusual step (for a mainstream journalist) of actually sitting down and going over John Kerry's record on Iraq. What he found was surprising even to those who are firmly in the ABB camp. The opening section of his article, titled
Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts lays out the case:
No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.
President Bush, seated beside Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, said Tuesday: "My opponent has taken so many different positions on Iraq that his statements are hardly credible at all.''
The allegation is the basis of a new Bush campaign TV ad that shows the Democratic senator from Massachusetts windsurfing to the strains of a Strauss waltz as a narrator intones: "Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.''
Yet an examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation.
This morning, Sandalow returns to the record by examining Bush's positions on the war on Iraq, in an article titled
Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war:
President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.
"Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''
Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.
An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.
...
Whether such shifts constitute a reasonable evolution of language to reflect the progression of war, or an about-face to justify unmet expectations, is a subjective judgment tinged by partisan prejudice.
Yet a close look at the record makes it difficult to support Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman's description of the upcoming debate as a "square-off between resolve and optimism versus vacillation and defeatism."
The pair of articles may not change too many partisan minds (or contain much new information if you have been a regular ProgBlog reader). But they are solid works of journalism in looking beyond the hype and spin and actually looking at the records of the two men running for President.
Highly recommended reading. When you're done, feel free to send an encouraging note to the Editors at letters@sfchronicle.com or some nice feedback to Sandalow himself.