Before the debate both campaigns called the debate very important.
Now we hear from the Republicans that debates don't really change anything, that they don't really count. Hmmm, wonder who won?
We also hear that Kerry is a "slick debater" and that "we aren't electing a debater-in-chief."
I'll give Bush credit. He has good handlers.
Expect the next month to be the dirtiest in the history of this nation. Karl Rove knows a lot of voters who believed the propaganda about Kerry (including, apparently, Bush too) were surprised that the real Kerry showed up, not the cartoon-character French-looking flip-flopping patrician weakling of right-wing sound bites. Ooops, guess they believed what they wanted to believe - which seems to be a trait with this administration.
Now the twisting begins.
Kerry's said very clearly (and concisely) that the United States had the right to take preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Bush is now saying: "Sen. Kerry said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use our troops to defend ourselves. Think about that. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government."
He also said today that "the use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France."
Read Kerry's quote again. "Countrymen?" "your people?" And proving to the world you are taking legitimate action is a no-brainer. If you don't you become an enemy of the world and no nation can withstand that.
Apparently Bush doesn't like the idea of the People being the ones a president must convince before waging pre-emptive war. This is the guy who is "exporting democracy." Hmm...
And then there is the fact that Bush tried to attack Kerry for daring to question the grand "coalition of the willing" (for God's sake, don't forget Poland) and said that this would harm our relations with allies.
Well, if anybody knows about how to harm our relations with allies it is this president.
Remember that song from "South Park" the movie? "Blame Canada?"
Turns out it is "blame France." A nation that Bush insulted today yet again in his efforts to build an even grander coalition of the willing.
Stand by the for the Republican slime machine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Vrangel, perhaps you didn't notice, but I'M NOT THE ONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
And in fact I wasn't ridiculing Poland. I was ridiculing the ridiculous notion of Bush's that POLAND, which contributes less than 1% of the troops in Iraq, is proof of some kind of grand coalition. But nice Republican way to twist the argument.
Here is another "criticism" of an ally - Costa Rica pulled out of our grand "Coalition of the Willing". I think Costa Rica's army is useless. Am I wrong?
Google Costa Rica's Army and see. they were also a "key member" of this "coalition," one which was always mentioned when Bush talked of how grand it was. What a long list: Britain, Spain (gone), Italy (look up how many troops), Australia (ditto); El Salvador (they pulled out their few troops); Phillipines (ditto); Costa Rica (just pulled out of this "coalition"), South Korea (look up how many troops).
Damn, we lost Costa Rica. NOW we have to do the heavy lifting.
Which John Kerry showed up?
The one that went to Vietnam or the one that protested it?
The one that praised Reagan or said that his Presidency was a 'moral darkness'?
The one that said he was there for the end of the cold war or the one that voted for a nuclear freeze?
The one that voted against EVERY weapon system out there or the one that tells the troops that 'help is on the way?
The one that says this was was a mistake or the one who said 'if you don't believe Saddam is a madman with nuclear weapons, dont vote for me?
The one who voted for the 87 billion or the one who voted against it?
The one who owns no SUVs on Earth Day or the one who owns 5 in Detroit?
The pro-war candidate or the anti-war Dean wanna-be?
Just wondering...
(after the whole draft email...I think you have NO room to talk about the "Republican slime machine...")
Vrangel - my point about Costa Rica is - yes, you are right, it does NOT have an army, which is why their army is useless - and which is why my saying that their army us useless is not ridiculing them, it is stating fact. Just as my pointing out how Poland being the 3rd member of the coalition means we have NO coalition but instead we are left alone, with some small assistance from Britain. I wish there was an emoticon for sarcasm - I would have used it. Bush proudly listed Costa Rica as a member of the coaltion when no troops were involved. Just like you listed Japan - when no combat troops are involved. Some coalition.
ALa71: first - welcome back!
Now the pummeling. :)
Which John Kerry showed up?
The one that went to Vietnam or the one that protested it? SAME GUY. HE WENT TO VIETNAM AND FOUGHT BRAVELY AND THEN HE TRIED TO CORRECT WHAT WAS WRONG. GOOD FOR HIM.
The one that praised Reagan or said that his Presidency was a 'moral darkness'? SAME GUY. REAGAN DID SOME GOOD THINGS AND SOME BAD THINGS. OR ARE YOU EXCUSING IRAN-CONTRA? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY CAN BOTH PRAISE AND CONDEMN A MAN WITHOUT FLIP-FLOPPING? YES, ALA71, IT IS. I EVEN THINK NIXON DID SOME GOOD THINGS, BUT AM I "FLIP-FLOPPING" WHEN I PRAISE HIS TRIP TO CHINA AND CRITICIZE HIS WATERGATE CRIMES THAT LED TO HIS RESIGNATION? WELL, IN THE BLACK/WHITE "FOR US OR AGAINST US" WORLD I GUESS I AM. I LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. YOU KNOW, THE ONE WHERE INVADING IRAQ WAS STUPID BUT PULLING OUT IN DEFEAT WOULD ALSO BE STUPID, SO THAT IT IS CORRECT TO CALL THE WAR A MISTAKE AND SAY WE SHOULD WIN.
The one that said he was there for the end of the cold war or the one that voted for a nuclear freeze? GUESS THE ONLY WAY TO WIN THE COLD WAR WAS TO BUILD MORE NUKES, HUH? UHH, NO. AGAIN THERE IS THAT BLACK/WHITE WORLD WHERE THERE ARE ONLY EVER TWO OPTIONS.
The one that voted against EVERY weapon system out there or the one that tells the troops that 'help is on the way? THIS IS SIMPLY A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT. BUT HERE IS THE FACTCHECK.ORG THAT ADDRESSES THIS OUTRIGHT FALSEHOOD: More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense Record - Latest barrage of ads repeats misleading claims that Kerry "repeatedly opposed" mainstream weapons: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=177
The one that says this was was a mistake or the one who said 'if you don't believe Saddam is a madman with nuclear weapons, dont vote for me? MORE BLACK/WHITE WORLD. SADDAM WAS A THREAT. INVADING WAS NOT THE WAY TO DISARM HIM. THE WAR WAS A MISTAKE, AND SADDAM WAS A MADMAN.
The one who voted for the 87 billion or the one who voted against it? SAME GUY.
The one who owns no SUVs on Earth Day or the one who owns 5 in Detroit? NO EXCUSE, THAT WAS A MISTAKE. WOW, CAN YOU NOT VOTE FOR SOMEBODY BASED ON A MISTAKE? THEN WHY ARE VOTING FOR BUSH?
The pro-war candidate or the anti-war Dean wanna-be? AS REAGAN WOULD SAY, "WELL, THERE YOU GO AGAIN." AS BUSH LEARNED LAST NIGHT TO HIS DISMAY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE IS JOHN KERRY, NOT DEAN, AND KERRY CAN STAND ON HIS OWN. IF HE WAS THE ANTI-WAR DEAN CANDIDATE BUSH WOULD BE DEBATING DEAN. INSTEAD HE GOT HIS ASS KICKED BY JOHN KERRY.
As far as the CBS documents - uhh, that was 1) CBS, not the DNC, and 2) lasted a week before CBS apologized, and 3) the facts of the story (that Bush failed to take a required physical and was removed from flight status, that he didn't fulfill his obligations) are all true, and 4) see number 1.
You still link the Swiftvets lying for Bush on your website. I don't link CBS and have repeatedly stated that Bush, even if he skipped drills in Alabama, was no different from other Guardsmen, and that he was not AWOL. If the Guard wanted to charge him they would have, they didn't, and thus the story ends. Yet you still link Swiftvets (and Ann Coulter) and say that I shouldn't criticize the slime machine? I beg to differ.
TURNS OUT I WAS WRONG: THE TWISTING HAD ALREADY BEGUN.
First, Jesus' General (http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2004/10/cnns-undecided-voter-is-actually.html) points out that CNN's Bill Hemmer interviewed three "undecided" voters in Florida about the debate. One of them, Edward Martos, is a graduate student in public administration at the University of Miami. "Public administration?" writes Jesus' General. "You'd think that he'd certainly be a bit more informed about politics and public policy that the average guy. How could he still be undecided?"
Turns out he most likely isn't: Martos is in fact a member of the College Republicans, serving as the Assistant Editor-in-Chief of their newsletter, among other duties. "Edward Martos is my new hero," writes a slightly sardonic Jesus' General. "He's been able to fool a lot of people, including Bill Hemmer, into believing that he's an independent when he's actually a GOP foot soldier and patriot. He'll go far in a party that reveres Karl Rove."
Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_26.php#003550) points to a similar situation at the Miami Herald, which joined with a local TV station to put together a panel of eight undecided voters to judge the debate. One of the undecideds, Ted Lyons, said that Kerry often sounded like "an idiot." As the Herald admitted later in the story, Lyons is actually a Republican political consultant -- not, it seems, much of an "undecided" at all. Wonders Marshall: "What the hell was the Herald thinking?"
Marshall also leaped on a story that Fox News has since yanked from its website, without explanation. In that story, John Kerry is said to have exclaimed, post-debate: "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" The here-then-gone-now piece had Kerry comparing himself to Bush: "I'm metrosexual -- he's a cowboy."
"Did Kerry really say that stuff?" asks an incredulous Marshall. "Stuff that sounds like classic winger parody? I looked around on Google and no other reporters seem to have gotten those choice quotes from Senator Kerry. A source on the Kerry campaign told me Kerry certainly didn't say anything remotely like that."
Fox issued an apology later, saying the reporter was being humorous and it was a mistake. Duh.
Twist twist twist - Bush is an enemy of truth.
Source from which I shamelessly plagurized uh, plaugerized, plag - STOLE this story: http://campaigndesk.org/ of the NON-PARTISAN Columbia Journalism Review.
So much for the REPUBLICAN slime machine....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002052153_breakin02m.html
P.S. I don't think ANYTHING coming out of Columbia is Non-partisan. They hire terrorists and Communists as Professors...
Good lord Ala71.
for those who didn't follow her link, it is about a Bush campaign office in Seattle that was broken into. some laptops were stolen. Four years ago the same thing happened.
So the Bush campaign says:
"To me there is some scary stuff going on from liberal radicals whose Bush hatred is out of control," Vance said.
"I'm saying anything is possible," he said. "It could be something that is sanctioned by the Kerry campaign or some overzealous supporters acting on their own."
Yeah, that's right. Kerry's campaign ordered a watergate style breakin - in Seattle. It is all a big conspiracy. Yep, how could one doubt it.
The article also says:
"Vance conceded he has no evidence of Democratic involvement in the break-in except the suspicious circumstances."
Well, in Bush's America, suspicious circumstances are enough to convict. You know us "liberal radicals" are all wild-eyed children anyway. You know. like retired officers Gen. Shalikashvili, Gen. Shinseki, Gen. Zinn, Gen. Clark, Lt. General Edward Baca, Admiral William Crowe, Lt. General Claudia Kennedy, General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Major General Jack Bradshaw, Rear Admiral Herbert Bridge, Brigadier General Rosetta Burke, Rear Admiral William “Bill” Center, Lt. General Daniel Christman, General Joseph Hoar... well, the list goes on and on and on. It is located at http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0915b.html.
It includes two recent chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the list includes three medal of honor winners (but they probably didn't really deserve the medals, right?) So other than Colin Powell, who is notably unhappy with Bush but still serving, how many chairmen of the joint chiefs have endorsed Bush? Uhh, none? Hmm....
Yep, wild-eyed peacenik hippie children, all of us. we are out to destroy America - by first breaking into the Seattle office of Bush's campaign. All part of our master plan.
Oh, and yeah, the COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW is partisan. Yeah, right. Jeez.
This is especially interesting given that Kerry never mentioned Poland - not once. Bush did. Kerry criticized the notion of a coalition when we provide 130,000 troops, Britain 9,000, Italy 3,000, and no other nation (including Poland at 2,460 and still FOURTH largest in the coalition) provides more than that. We provide 90% of the troops. Nine out of ten.
So Kerry criticized the President for not building a coalition that would share the burden, and the slime-machine has turned it into an insult to Poland.
Again, Kerry never said ANYTHING about Poland, but he did criticize the president for waging a war where we provide 90% of the effort and we didn't need to - wage war or, if war was necessary, provide 90% of the troops. How does that constitute an insult to Poland?
It doesn't of course, but truth matters not to an increasingly desperate Republican party that sees American voters waking up to the reality of the President's incredible incompetence.
Look at how incredibly hypocritical the right wing is being: they are attacking Kerry for driving away allies!
Of course he did no such thing, but even if he did - imagine!
Remember our long-time ally France? Oops, they are our enemy - and everyone seems to accept that unquestioningly. Remember Germany? Oops. Then there is Spain - ooops, they are now weak. Canada? Turncoats. Mexico? Bastards. So where are our allies?
Well, there is Poland, Great Britain, and South Korea - who, between then, make up 7% of the force, and the remaining allies make up 3%.
In the first Gulf War (the one we were correct in fighting) allies made up 70% of the coalition, and paid for 80% of the costs. THAT is a coalition. THAT is an alliance. Not Costa Rica, Japan (with 500 non-combat troops), or Poland.
And the right is actually criticizing Kerry for not understanding international relations. What is next, are they going to attack him for cutting taxes for the rich?
"Yep, wild-eyed peacenik hippie children, all of us. we are out to destroy America - by first breaking into the Seattle office of Bush's campaign. All part of our master plan"
Oh, no,, who told you that?? You will never get me to admit to all of it.... noooo.
Madtom
TWD, just what is critical mass for "coalition"? Or is it just the addition of the French?
What is all this about coalition anyway? I mean really. Aren't we arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? As in, "Who cares?"
Is coalition defined as: "100% of all nations on the planet must approve and be equally represented". How do you determine appropriate representation? By actual numbers, or as a percentage of population? Or do you look at who has the most to lose, or who is the most aggrieved and then determine whether or not their contribution "counts"?
If a coalition does not have to be 100% of all nations, then what is the percentage? What criteria determines contribution? Is it just lives spent? And who does the accounting?
Let's face it. Kerry says there was no coalition. That depends on the definition. Who is going to come up with that definition? The U.N.?
Coalition, from dictionary.com: "An alliance, especially a temporary one, of people, factions, parties, or nations." Note the word 'temporary'.
So, why does Kerry deny the existence of a coalition, no matter how small? Because its a debatable point? What is the point? That we went into Iraq without everyone agreeing with us? So? I mean really, so?
I can see arguing about why we went into Iraq, and whether we were mislead, and whether we were over or under manned, etc., but whether or not we had a coalition meeting Kerry's criteria of some unspecified number of nations that (apparently) must include France? What's that all about?
Clearly we have a coalition. So, it's England and Poland and us. And whoever wants to be considered an ally whether they are providing troops or intelligence or good wishes.
WTFO fb
See, Frater, I don't think it is really about the definition of the word so much as WHY we should have a coalition. The reasons are manyfold, but the main one is so that we aren't left doing all of the heavy-lifting by ourselves. In the first gulf war we provided 30% of the troops. Now we have 90% of the load.
I guess the difference is this: I am carrying a heavy load and a I ask you for help. The first time you take 70% of the weight and distribute it among 10 friends, and we carry on. The next time you take 10% of the weight and distribute it among 10 friends. And I stagger on under the heavy burden. I say "I asked you for help!" and you point out that there are just as many friends helping as last time. I say 'that's not help' and you say "how dare you insult your friends? And after all, 70%, 10%, what is the meaning of the word help?"
Yeah, those freeloaders - they NEVER help us. Like in the first Gulf War, what did they ever do? Oh. Well, sure, that one time. It isn't like they helped in the Korean war when... oh, they helped us there too?
and notice how POLAND is such a key ally in the "coalition" with 2,500 troops, but 6,000 European troops in Kabul means nothing to Vrangel - because they didn't provide helicopters.
And since we have 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, that 6,000 is about 43% of the force. And all of our allies together in Iraq provide 10% of the force - including POLAND at less than 2%. Oh, and they are pulling out anyway.
Damn freeloaders.
I can't debate the size of the coalition. I will give you that point. But, there is a coalition, no matter how miniscule. I belabor this point because Kerry is belaboring this point.
It is fine and good for him to say "I can do better" and assert that if only he had been in charge, we would have the French on our side. Which is unlikely. Given the whole oil for food and oil for weapons and oil for camembert, etc. It is pretty clear, though never discussed, why the UN and Germany and France did not want us to go into Iraq. We were never gonna have a 'Kerry approved' coalition. Let's all put that to rest.
I'm tired of the sniping. Who cares? What about the simple issue of whether or not we should have gone in the first place? And the concept of terrorism is more than flavor of the month al-Qaeda? And what is pre-emption about anyway? And did Bush really KNOW there were no weapons of mass destruction (again, I hate that phrase) and fool congress and everyone else so that he could give Cheney fat Halliburton contracts? Or not.
I am disgusted that the debates have done 'business as usual' with unsubstantiable claims being argued about as if they matter. And stuff that matters, because it does not submit neatly to being soundbitten, are not discussesd. Blech. fb
Sorry. I'm a bit testy. This whole political debate farce truly annoys me at some core level. I guess I thought they'd talk about the shit man. fb
frater, whether you are testy, whether you are in a good mood, whatever, you are always awesome.
Post a Comment