Unfair Balance from Dan Balz

In a generally very good article in the Washington Post on the effect of the first presidential debate on the campaign, Dan Balz writes "The aftermath of the debate produced a strategic change for the Kerry campaign, which had used the two weeks before it to launch an argument about Bush's record in Iraq that was designed to take the pressure off Kerry's often-contradictory statements on the subject."

This claim is simply false. Far from being contradictory Kerry's statements on Iraq display the foolish consistency which is the hobgoblin of little minds. This was convincingly argued by William Salaten a month and a half ago (I added that Kerry has the opposite problem). It was also proven again yesterday in the New York Times. I understand that Balz feels that it would be breaking a rule to point out that the main argument of the Presidents re-election campaign is a lie, but facts are facts and reporters should not make false claims.