No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.

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.

The crux of the flip-flopping charge is based on pitting Kerry's pointed criticism of the war against his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force, a vote the Democratic senator defends to this day.

Kerry, who was one of 29 Democratic senators to support the resolution, said the vote was appropriate to strengthen the president's hand in negotiations, and he draws a distinction between his vote and an endorsement of the March 2003 attack.

"Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq,'' Kerry said on the eve of the vote. "Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal."

Republicans ridicule such distinctions and use Kerry's vote as the basis for their assertion that Kerry once favored the war.

Yet in the fall of 2002, several months before the air strikes on Baghdad began, Bush himself insisted the vote was not the same as a declaration of war but instead gave him the hand he needed to negotiate the peace.

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' Bush said in September 2002. "It's a chance for Congress to say, 'we support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about."

] No argument is more central to the Republican attack on
] Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has
] flip-flopped on Iraq.
]
] ...
]
] 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.

[ Thank you Marc Sandalow. Remarkably, there are some reporters who cling to the notion of Journalism. Of doing research and presenting conclusions rather than penning endless, identical, he-said/she-said tripe that does nothing to inform the public. Objective does not mean divorced from the world. And balance implies fairness, not equal space for unchecked garbage. It's immensely gratifying to encounter these solid grains of truth in the undifferentiated mass of spin and shill that populates the majority of mainstream news.

And even better, it appears that this was on page A-1. I wonder if it got above the fold. -k]