Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Pretending that this has anything to do with Wilson is a way to make clear that you are actively trying to confuse things, rather than merely confused yourself. Read the CSIS report, mentioned in club's article of yesterday and the executive summary of which I quoted at length. Things are bad and not headed in the right direction.

And it's not just Iraq. Looks like there are some problems with the road map.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...palestinians_3

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And it's not just Iraq. Looks like there are some problems with the road map.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...palestinians_3

I assumed you were referring to the Palestinians' continued refusal to abate terrorism, which was also part of that map. But, apparently 50 bombing attempts in three months isn't enough for Sharon to deviate from the map himself. High burden, indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And it's not just Iraq. Looks like there are some problems with the road map.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...palestinians_3

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I assumed you were referring to the Palestinians' continued refusal to abate terrorism, which was also part of that map. But, apparently 50 bombing attempts in three months isn't enough for Sharon to deviate from the map himself. High burden, indeed.

One of the more startling things I read about that incident on Haifa street in Baghdad the other day is that the street is heavily populated by Palestinians. The dead journalist is a Palestinian. The street is a major thoroughfare that has seen repeated attacks on American soldiers.

I don't think I've ever seen a people get it wrong more than these people.

[sgtclub]

He has really become a characature of himself:

ON DON IMUS'S RADIO SHOW this morning, John Kerry suggested that he would not have gone to war with Iraq, knowing what we know now (no evident stocks of weapons of mass destruction): "Not under the current circumstances, not that I see. I voted on the basis of weapons of mass destruction," Kerry told Imus

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/628ywjul.asp

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He has really become a characature of himself:



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/628ywjul.asp

While agreeing that this shows poor political skills, this doesn't contradict what Kerry said a month ago -- that knowing what we do now, he still would have given the President the authority to go to war. He's just also saying he wouldn't have used if there were no WMD. (This is not an academic distinction -- when the vote was taken, the inspectors weren't done.)

As John Stewart said to Pat Buchanan last night (that was fun to type), voting to give the President a big stick is not the same as using it to whack someone.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Meaning? He just gave another inch. Is Thune threatening him? Will him and the clown posse be able to claim credit for saving america from tort lawyers, while they are running one for Vice President (and it doesn't look like he's going to win them his own state)?

Yeah, just checking. I'm trying to figure out what he gets out of this, other than a chance to say "see, I'm not standing in the way anymore".

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Meaning? He just gave another inch. Is Thune threatening him?

Thune's beating him.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While agreeing that this shows poor political skills, this doesn't contradict what Kerry said a month ago -- that knowing what we do now, he still would have given the President the authority to go to war. He's just also saying he wouldn't have used if there were no WMD. (This is not an academic distinction -- when the vote was taken, the inspectors weren't done.)

As John Stewart said to Pat Buchanan last night (that was fun to type), voting to give the President a big stick is not the same as using it to whack someone.

You have got to be kidding me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He has really become a characature of himself:

It's worse than that. See if you can figure out what he's saying in this blurb:

IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?"

KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)

Imus couldn't.

Don Imus: "I Asked Him A Number Of Questions About Iraq And I Can't Tell You What He Said." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 9/15/04)

(ETE) And Imus is a strong Kerry supporter.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Thune's beating him.

Without the benefit of having any idea what Hello is talking about, I'm trying to think of a national issue that fewer voters in South Dakota might care about but I'm not coming up with one. Space exploration, perhaps? Fisheries protection?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Without the benefit of having any idea what Hello is talking about, I'm trying to think of a national issue that fewer voters in South Dakota might care about but I'm not coming up with one. Space exploration, perhaps? Fisheries protection?

I believe there are a few big employers in that state who are in line to become tort targets, due to a minimal past use of asbestos.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's worse than that. See if you can figure out what he's saying in this blurb:

IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?"

KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)

Imus couldn't.

Don Imus: "I Asked Him A Number Of Questions About Iraq And I Can't Tell You What He Said." (MSNBC's "Imus in the Morning," 9/15/04)

(ETE) And Imus is a strong Kerry supporter.

You can't ignore Hussein but we shouldn't have gone to war. I know you guys like to see things in black and white, but it's really not that hard. There are other brutal regimes with a history of ill-advised military adventurism and making life difficult for their neighbors which we have not invaded. Like Cuba, which we haven't invaded since the Bay of Pigs. Or Sudan.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your article was based upon polls taken of the Iraqui people. This is a group who 2 years ago voted 100% for saddam for president. Do you think they might be wanting to mouth off a little?

The polls were from the opinion journal cite Club posted to rebut Ty's CSIS stuff. C'mon, you've got to know the biases going in or else your one-liners make no sense.

Some other Iraquis are fucking stuff up, and that needs to be corrected. You still don't have an alternative Ty. What will John John do different?

The alternative, Hank, is in correcting the Iraqis fucking stuff up. When Kerry is commander in chief he will consult with the military men to do this, rather than overruling them when they say that the safe and prudent thing would be to let the Marines finish the job cleaning up Fallujah.

You can keep repeating this "what's his plan, he's got no plan" mantra until the cows come home, but it seems incongruous when you didn't stammer similar slogans when the admin's original reconstruction plan went out the window when we went back to the UN for a new resolution, more help and more money. Can you describe anything specific in Bush's plan at this point, aside from more airstrikes? Or is it a "he's the incumbent, he doesn't need one" situation?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can't ignore Hussein but we shouldn't have gone to war. I know you guys like to see things in black and white, but it's really not that hard. There are other brutal regimes with a history of ill-advised military adventurism and making life difficult for their neighbors which we have not invaded. Like Cuba, which we haven't invaded since the Bay of Pigs. Or Sudan.

Put aside the substantive question of whether we should have gone. He said a month ago that knowing what he know knows he still would have voted for the war. What does Kerry think his vote authorizing war means? Does he mean that he gets to hedge on the outcome - meaning that if it goes well he can say he voted for it, and if it goes less than well, he can say that what he's currently saying this week?

This is why he is losing. Someone should force him to answer the question as to what he would have done if he were president at the time, no just how he would have voted.