Nope, Jack, it ain't.

As someone who wore a uniform (and was heavily involved in training that army, both before and after Desert Storm) there is some context missing.

Not only is there the change in the strategic calculus caused by 9/11 there was a significant change in the training of the Army and Marines - precisely because of the considerations Cheney mentioned.

Because we were uncomfortable with the thought of fighting in Baghdad - because we recognized that the type of combat we were likely to face in the near-to-mid term was going to involve urban areas, and because we learned in Mogadishu that we had to not just think about it, but actually train it - because of all of that, yes, this time it was different.

And we were far better prepared to go fight that fight. I doubt we were any more comfortable with it - no soldier I know likes fighting in cities over fighting in open ground, it's messier, and a lot harder to keep from hurting the poor soul who isn't a combatant, but is stuck in the middle.

So no - it isn't a flip-flop by that standard.

Or so say I, anyway.

You just made my point. Almost all of the accusations I have seen for Kerry "flip-flopping" have also been almost entirely devoid of context. I wonder if a Senator could ever again be elected President of the United States because of the compromises and seemingly contradictory votes that are forced to be made because of amendments. You can say of any member of Congress "As a Senator, this man voted against (insert pet issue here)" when actually that vote was required due to an unacceptable amendment.

If we are going to portray someone as indecisive by presenting isolated votes for and against issues, playing sound bites that cut off all context for the statement being used to damn the individual, then it should be acceptable to present the statements of BOTH sides out of context. Otherwise, we should stop presenting only the statements of our opponents out of context. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?

Jack - has Senator Kerry offered up any coherent explanation for those 'apparent' flip-flops? I know one of your concerns with the present Administration is that they can't seem to admit to a mistake - and I counter with they won't because of how it will be used in an election year. So, in some respects, you have to watch what they do - in reacting, adapting, and adjusting. And I think we've seen some of that.

At the same time, why doesn't the Senator just explain it? I suspect the media would give him the ink. Thus far, when he has tried to explain it - his answers continually change.

Face it, Jack - Senator Kerry doesn't want us looking at his senate record that closely, because it's mostly puff. Which is actually okay with me in some respects - I'm not fond of legislators who feel they constantly have to be writing legislation to justify their existence - because it usually just gets in the way of the rest of us trying to live our lives.

But Kerry is pretty much running a campaign of, "I served 4 months in close combat 30 years ago, and I have some plans for the future the details of which I will share with you after you elect me to the office I want so very much but I'm not going to discuss my past legislative history because it's way too liberal for middle America and Bush is Bad, Me Good.

My, I managed to push this around a bit, din't (sic) I?