Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

From Newsmax:

• Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:
  
  
  Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.
  Kerry then: "The final victory in the war on terror depends on a victory in the war of ideas, much more than the war on the battlefield. And the war - not the war, I don’t want to use that terminology."
  
  
  
  Kerry now claims Iraq was a "diversion from" the war on terror. On Dec. 15 he said: "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror."
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam Hussein's evil was not enough to justify war. Here's what he said in a speech July 29, 2002:
  "I agree completely with this administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."
  
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam’s "downfall ... has left America less secure." Oopsy: Here's his anti-Dean, anti-Saddam stand in December 2003, according to Newsday:
  "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture, don’t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
  
  
  Kerry now claims the decision to go into Iraq was a "colossal" failure. Yet on Aug. 9, Kerry said that had he known then what he knew now, he would still have voted for the use-of-force resolution, according to CNN:
  "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively."
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam was not a "threat to our security." Here's what he said in January 2003, according to the L.A. Times: "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
  
  
  Kerry now claims Saddam's "capability to acquire weapons" was not reason enough for war. Yet according to the Congressional Record of Oct. 9, 2002, he called those who would leave the Iraqi dictator alone "naive to the point of grave danger."
  And so on and so forth.
  
  At least no one can say Kerry is two-faced. He has so many more faces than that.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/153604.shtml

eft

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[Kerry flip-flops]

(AP) President Bush said Tuesday "we will win" the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Mr. Bush said, "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, yet one that we will win.

That statement differed from Mr. Bush's earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize him for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in639576.shtml

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You guys like to say this, so I refer you back to the article cited here by me and (noted lefty) Less in which the SF Chronicle's Washington bureau chief, Marc Sandalow, actually looked at Kerry's position over time -- instead of the GOP talking points you've been sucking up somewhere -- and reported that's he's been consistent over time. Moderate, so he gets attacked from both sides, and maybe too nuanced to make an effective presidential candidated, but consistent.

This article has been flayed apart by both sides since its publication.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Tell me, why wasn't Allawi merely promoting the IRAQI agenda?

Interesting question. I suppose he probably wasn't given adequate time after hitting all the Bush campaign talking points.

And if he was going to address the Iraqi agenda in the US, why then did he not ask why, after giving over $20 million to Halliburton, there is no power for much of the day in most of the country?

Why was he not asking Congress why the American contractors they are throwing so much money at to get the Iraqi oil wells up and pumping why it is that the natural gas that could be used to provide fuel for utilities is being flared off at the wellhead?

Why was he not asking for doctors and teachers?

Tell me, why wasn't Allawi promoting the Iraqi agenda?

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
That statement differed from Mr. Bush's earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror.

An off-the-cuff comment to Matt Lauer on a train in specific context is hardly comparable to 6 months' worth of Kerry speeches.

But hey, run with what you got.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry have given speeches that say lots of things. You can't point to any one speech to say that he didn't say something else a week earlier.

Why is it that you keep trotting out this old canard instead of addressing the points in Kerry's speech?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But hey, run with what you got.

Exactly why we are discussing bogus claims of flip-flopping instead of the terrible mess Bush has gotten us into in Iraq.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kerry's positions on Iraq have changed so much in the last month - since the Clinton people have apparently advised him to channel Dean - that I highly doubt the NYU speech is (1) what he even thinks today and (2) what he'll say during the debate.

Again with the old flip-flop shit. Can you explain why the plan is better or worse than Bush's plan?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
An off-the-cuff comment to Matt Lauer on a train in specific context is hardly comparable to 6 months' worth of Kerry speeches.

But hey, run with what you got.

Sorry, mister, but this is the No Spin Zone. Was W lying when he said we couldn't when the war on terror, or was he lying when he said we could? It's a simple question.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sorry, mister, but this is the No Spin Zone. Was W lying when he said we couldn't when the war on terror, or was he lying when he said we could? It's a simple question.

The quote was taken out of context. He essentially said that this is a different type of war, one we will not "win" in the sense that we did when Germany and Japan surrendered or the Wall came tumbling down, because we are not at war with nation states capable of surrender.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Again with the old flip-flop shit. Can you explain why the plan is better or worse than Bush's plan?

I will take a shot at it if you can describe how his plan differs from the way the war is currently being prosecuted. Doing it "better" doesn't give me much to work with.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The quote was taken out of context. He essentially said that this is a different type of war, one we will not "win" in the sense that we did when Germany and Japan surrendered or the Wall came tumbling down, because we are not at war with nation states capable of surrender.

Now you're spinning like Ivan over Jamaica. How about this one?

"You got to be able to speak clearly in order to make this world a more peaceful place," Bush said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._on_el_pr/bush

Is W now endorsing Kerry?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
An off-the-cuff comment to Matt Lauer on a train in specific context is hardly comparable to 6 months' worth of Kerry speeches.

But hey, run with what you got.

Well, I'll certainly agree with you that it was unscripted. That comment alone probably aged Rove by 10 years.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The quote was taken out of context. He essentially said that this is a different type of war, one we will not "win" in the sense that we did when Germany and Japan surrendered or the Wall came tumbling down, because we are not at war with nation states capable of surrender.

Okay, you've now supplied the context. I suppose that might be helpful in case any highschoolers are hanging out; the context is pretty fucking obvious to anybody who thinks about it for a second.

Now, fill in the missing link in your assertion. Explain how what Bush said doesn't mean we can't win the war on terror.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Now you're spinning like Ivan over Jamaica. How about this one?

"You got to be able to speak clearly in order to make this world a more peaceful place," Bush said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._on_el_pr/bush

Is W now endorsing Kerry?

If you keep misunderstanding him, there is nothing more I can do for you.