Even The Washington Post Editorial Page Has Some Questions for Kerry

Even The Washington Post Editorial Page Has Some Questions for Kerry

There's no doubt that the Washington Post will ultimately endorse Kerry's candidacy. He is, after all, a Democrat and in the end, that's all that matters to the Post. But even their editorial page has problems with him.

A Sampling:

"The most important confusion surrounds Mr. Kerry's position on Iraq. In 1991 he voted against the first Persian Gulf War, saying more support was needed from Americans for a war that he believed would prove costly. In 1998, when President Clinton was considering military steps against Iraq, he strenuously argued for action, with or without allies. Four years later he voted for a resolution authorizing invasion but criticized Mr. Bush for not recruiting allies. Last fall he voted against funding for Iraqi reconstruction, but argued that the United States must support the establishment of a democratic government.

Mr. Kerry's attempts to weave a thread connecting and justifying all these positions are unconvincing. He would do better to offer a more honest accounting. His estimation of the cost of expelling Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was simply wrong; and if President Bush was mistaken to think in 2003 that there was an urgent need to stop Saddam Hussein from stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Kerry made the same error in 1998.

More important, Mr. Kerry should clarify what he believes should be the objectives of the U.S. mission in Iraq going forward -- and what military and aid commitments he is prepared to make."

I wonder if the Post's reporters will pursue these genuinely substantive questions with the same enthusiasm that they've chased frivolous ones about George Bush's Guard service.