You know, I'm violently unimpressed by the talking points memo rhetoric which suggests that the author actually was persuaded by the debates. So, Lie No. 1 --- the author decided how to vote yesterday.
Lie No. 2 --- these are the author's "thoughts." These misrepresentations come straight out of DNC headquarters.
Lie No. 3 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, and it didn't stick." Yes, I think it did stick. Kerry has been all over the map in Iraq, and just because you Lefties would like to throw it down the memory hole doesn't make it disappear.
Lie No. 4 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as weak (ironic, as Kerry was the one who actually fought in Vietnam), and it didn't stick." There's no irony in pointing out that Kerry is "weak" on defense simply because he fought in Vietnam. He has a record of opposing every major weapons system in his twenty years in the Senate (and spare us the misrepresentation about Cheney, whose position was taken post-Cold War, not in the middle of it) and campaigning on the nuclear freeze in his first Senate campaign. Kerry is weak, even if he exhibited personal heroism 35 years ago.
Lie No. 5 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as a radical liberal (how can you flip-flop if you're consisently liberal is beyond me), and it didn't stick." Again, it did stick. And since you cannot understand, let me explain it: Kerry attempted to posture as supportive of the Iraq action when it appeared to be popular to do so. To obtain the nomination and distinguish himself from Dean and others. Now that the going has gotten a little tough, the weak/Kerry wants to surrender. The flip-flop label applies to his Iraq position, and his prior posturing to the contrary notwithstanding --- surprise! --- now he's back to the far Left position.
Lie No. 6 --- "Bush said we invaded Iraq due to an imminent threat of WMD's." You far Lefties have repeated this lie so many times, you probably even believe it. Bush never said "imminent."
Lie No. 7 --- "none were found." In fact, some have been found. not as much as we expected, but some.
Lie No. 8 --- "he said Hussein had direct ties to Al-Queda, and no conclusive proof was found." In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report documents a number of contacts/ties.
Lie No. 9 --- "And now the coup de grace, he says Hussein was trying to get sanctions lifted so that he could re-start his WMD program." Actually, it was the most recent UN report that reached this conclusion.
Lie No. 10 --- "Bush can hide, but he can't run on his record." Of course, that's all an incumbent President has to run on. Of course, it is sKerry who fears those who tell the truth about his record.
-- Modified on 10/15/2004 7:27:21 AM
mine.
After 3 debates, my thoughts:
Bush tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, and it didn't stick. Bush tried to paint Kerry as weak (ironic, as Kerry was the one who actually fought in Vietnam), and it didn't stick. Bush tried to paint Kerry as a radical liberal (how can you flip-flop if you're consisently liberal is beyond me), and it didn't stick.
Meanwhile, Bush said we invaded Iraq due to an imminent threat of WMD's, and none were found. Then he said Hussein had direct ties to Al-Queda, and no conclusive proof was found. Then he said well, at least we removed a ruthless dictator, and the world is safer without him. Sure, he's gone, but Iraq's a mess and there are plenty of other ruthless dictators out there. Are we gonna take all of them on? And now the coup de grace, he says Hussein was trying to get sanctions lifted so that he could re-start his WMD program. Gee, there's a strong reason for spending hundreds of billions of dollars while committing diplomatic suicide.
Through it all, Kerry has been remarkably consistent, and, dare I say, presidential. Meanwhile, "Furious George" actually interrupted the moderator in the second debate, and seems to think that the louder he speaks, and the more he pounds on the lectern, the more truth there must be in what he says.
Bush says Kerry can run but he can't hide. I say Bush can hide, but he can't run on his record.
You know, I'm violently unimpressed by the talking points memo rhetoric which suggests that the author actually was persuaded by the debates. So, Lie No. 1 --- the author decided how to vote yesterday.
Lie No. 2 --- these are the author's "thoughts." These misrepresentations come straight out of DNC headquarters.
Lie No. 3 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper, and it didn't stick." Yes, I think it did stick. Kerry has been all over the map in Iraq, and just because you Lefties would like to throw it down the memory hole doesn't make it disappear.
Lie No. 4 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as weak (ironic, as Kerry was the one who actually fought in Vietnam), and it didn't stick." There's no irony in pointing out that Kerry is "weak" on defense simply because he fought in Vietnam. He has a record of opposing every major weapons system in his twenty years in the Senate (and spare us the misrepresentation about Cheney, whose position was taken post-Cold War, not in the middle of it) and campaigning on the nuclear freeze in his first Senate campaign. Kerry is weak, even if he exhibited personal heroism 35 years ago.
Lie No. 5 --- "Bush tried to paint Kerry as a radical liberal (how can you flip-flop if you're consisently liberal is beyond me), and it didn't stick." Again, it did stick. And since you cannot understand, let me explain it: Kerry attempted to posture as supportive of the Iraq action when it appeared to be popular to do so. To obtain the nomination and distinguish himself from Dean and others. Now that the going has gotten a little tough, the weak/Kerry wants to surrender. The flip-flop label applies to his Iraq position, and his prior posturing to the contrary notwithstanding --- surprise! --- now he's back to the far Left position.
Lie No. 6 --- "Bush said we invaded Iraq due to an imminent threat of WMD's." You far Lefties have repeated this lie so many times, you probably even believe it. Bush never said "imminent."
Lie No. 7 --- "none were found." In fact, some have been found. not as much as we expected, but some.
Lie No. 8 --- "he said Hussein had direct ties to Al-Queda, and no conclusive proof was found." In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report documents a number of contacts/ties.
Lie No. 9 --- "And now the coup de grace, he says Hussein was trying to get sanctions lifted so that he could re-start his WMD program." Actually, it was the most recent UN report that reached this conclusion.
Lie No. 10 --- "Bush can hide, but he can't run on his record." Of course, that's all an incumbent President has to run on. Of course, it is sKerry who fears those who tell the truth about his record.
-- Modified on 10/15/2004 7:27:21 AM
#1 - Piss off. You don't know a damn thing about me. I was right of center most of my life. People here who know me know exactly how I've felt about this election and the war. And I was indeed undecided before the debates.
#2 - No, they're my thoughts. I just don't post 'em ad nauseum.
#3 - "You lefties" - see #1
#4 - Agree to disagree
#5 - Kerry does not want to surrender. Don't know where you got this information.
#6 - You're right, sorry. Rumsfeld said it.
#7 - Some crap from the early 1990's does not make a case for pre-emptive warfare.
#8 - Conclusive, I said. You want to go to war based on a hunch???
#9 - Try to follow me here: I'm not saying he wasn't trying to get sanctions lifted. I'm saying that his desire to get sanctions lifted was not a legitimate reason to invade. Cripes, the sanctions were working, and there wasn't any indication that anyone was going to allow them to be lifted.
#10 - Yes, that's all he's got to run on - and that's what's so depressing.
"Violently unimpressed" - Got a good laugh from that
-- Modified on 10/15/2004 5:47:24 AM
I used to be more of a sound conservative, but I have become more moderate. I am one of the undecideds -- although in NY State, it doesn't matter much.
That Kerry voted AGAINST the first Gulf War I find troubling. That was the war when....
- Saddam had recently gassed the Kurds.
- Iraq invaded another country to control oil supply.
- Bush I had assembled a huge coalition from the UN
and Kerry still opposed it.
I just don't know how strong a commander-in-chief Kerry would be.
-- Modified on 10/14/2004 5:57:06 PM
a) He had not Recently gassed the Kurds, that action, reprehensible as it was, was taken during the Iran Iraq war- WHEN WE WERE IN ALLIANCE WITH HIM. The Kurds were in open revolt against him, and thus at least legit targets to some extent, even if the weapon was illegal.
B) Iraq invaded Kuwait for its cash supply, not its oil
C) Kerry- from a family of Diplomats, was entitled to think there was more diplomatic work to be done before war.
Kerry has been to war and finds it a mess. I assure you that if our casualties from Gulf I were 25,000 instead of 193 or whatever it was (recalling that most were alliance forces killed by AMERICAN WEAPONS), you might be whinging the other way.
I supported that war as I did this last, but I do respect those who were anti. Many had good reasons, while many did not.
Given the total incompetance of the incumbant- how bad could he be?
Try to remember that we are witnessing the all time nadir of the presidency. Can't fall off the floor.
My understanding is that the Kurds were gassed in 1988 while Gulf War I started in 1990 -- that's why I said Saddam had recently gassed them.
Once Saddam had launched a full scale invasion, I personally don't see what diplomatic solutions were left. To me, that would have been more akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
As far as the nadir of the presidency goes, I still tack that onto Carter.
-- Modified on 10/16/2004 11:19:26 PM