Who's the flip-flopper?

Erik, I know you don't believe anything you read, but you should check out this bit of pre-Iraq-war history that you might be trying to forget.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

...Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said. (emphasis mine)

So is Kerry a flip-flopper because he was tricked into voting for a war under false evidence, and then voted against the $87 billion to fund the war?

Um, no. Kerry actually had a separate plan to pay for the war, but Republicans didn't like it because Kerry wanted to ensure we had the $87 billion to spend.

Also yesterday, the House debated and passed, 327 to 93, a GOP-drafted resolution praising U.S. troops in Iraq on the first anniversary of the invasion and saying the world is safer because of Saddam Hussein's ouster. Many Democrats criticized the resolution, saying it was silent on Iraqi civilian casualties, Democratic efforts to boost military spending on body armor and other matters.

Hastert and DeLay used the resolution debate to criticize Kerry, even though he could not vote on it and reporters had not asked about him. "I'm sure that John Kerry and [House Minority Leader] Nancy Pelosi will have a different view about the war and what is right," Hastert said.

DeLay, accidentally referring to the Democrat as "Senator Kennedy," noted that Kerry on Tuesday said he initially had supported $87 billion in Iraqi war spending last year under a plan that would have financed it with a tax surcharge on the wealthy. "He just wanted it contingent on tax increases," DeLay said, "as if holding body armor and ammunition hostage to a political agenda is a legitimate position for a national leader."

That Kerry bastard! Doesn't he know that national debt is a sign of strength? ;)