In one week, one of the dirtiest campaigns in U.S. history will come to an end as voters around the country choose between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry. It’s time to pull the plug on all the demonizing political commercials and let the people decide.

There’s just one thing I have to say before that happens. Throughout this campaign, both parties have made several accusations. Many of them are false, and all of them are questionable. One charge in particular, however, has been hanging over Kerry’s head for a majority of the election season. Bush has implied that Kerry “flip-flops” on the issues and therefore is not fit to lead the country.

It’s a simple strategy crafted by Bush’s political advisers: Immediately put your opponent on the defensive so no one notices that you’re just as guilty. Bravo, but I’m afraid it’s time to blow the whistle on this one, even if we only have a few seconds left on the clock. Take a look at President Bush’s record, my friends, and you will discover that he is the real “flip-flopper in chief.”

One of Bush’s favorite barbs, for instance, is that Kerry would be inconsistent in fighting the war on terrorism. Look who’s talking. During a news conference in April, President Bush said, “One of the interesting things people ask me … ‘Can you ever win the war on terror?’ Of course you can.”

Less than five months later, Today host Matt Lauer asked Bush if he thought we could win the war on terrorism.

“I don’t think you can win it,” the president responded. Bush went on the record the following day saying, “Make no mistake about it, we are winning, and we will win (the war on terrorism).”

Meanwhile, the president is suggesting Kerry would be inconsistent in fighting terrorism. That’s an interesting assertion coming from someone whose official position on the issue is, “Yes. No. Yes.”

I guess the president wasn’t flip-flopping when he completely changed his mind on the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden. Just six days after the 9-11 attacks, Bush said, “I want justice. And there’s an old poster out West, I recall, that says, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’ “

Generally, when someone makes such a passionate statement, he or she tends to stand by it. During a March 2002 news conference, however, the president didn’t seem to be concerned about Bin Laden at all. “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him … I truly am not that concerned about him.” It’s nice to know that in regard to capturing the number one enemy of the United States, our president has an attention span of less than six months.

Well, at least President Bush has been consistent on his reasons for invading Iraq. Oh wait – no. During a discussion with the president of Uruguay in September 2002, Bush said, “You can’t distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” Almost one year later, after meeting with lawmakers at the White House, he conceded that “we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.”

Undoubtedly, Saddam was a tyrant who deserved to be ousted. But don’t change your story a few months before the election and say this was the reason we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. This transcends flip-flopping. When U.S. soldiers die for a cause, your inconsistency as a leader dishonors their sacrifice.

Notice that I focused only on Bush’s flip-flops regarding national security. That is because it is the one area in which Bush seems to dominate over Kerry in the minds of voters. But take a look at the facts. The president has been just as wishy-washy as Kerry when it comes to national security, period.

It’s time to vote for a candidate based on real issues, not some abstract fear that a war veteran with decades worth of foreign policy experience can’t keep us safe from harm.

Jon Monteith is a sophomore in LAS. His column runs Tuesdays. He can be reached at [email protected].