http://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC082304.mov

Endlessly Changing Positions?

The charge that Kerry is "endlessly changing positions on Iraq" is without factual support. In fact, Kerry has never wavered from his support for giving Bush authority to use force in Iraq, nor has he changed his position that Bush should not have gone to war without greater international support, and without making greater efforts at diplomacy backed by the threat of force.

Here's what Kerry said on the Senate floor before voting to give Bush the authority:

   Kerry (Oct. 9, 2002) Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

That's consistent with Kerry's later criticism of Bush for failing -- as Kerry sees it -- to secure enough help and support from other countries. And that's been Kerry's position ever since.

Kerry did vote against $87 billion in emergency funds for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, and was criticized for inconsistency at the time even by Democratic rivals Lieberman and Gephardt. But Kerry has never advocated a quick withdrawal from Iraq as some of his other Democratic rivals did.

When the San Francisco Chronicle combed through 200 of Kerry's speeches and statements on Iraq, it found instances of "clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations" that made Kerry's position difficult to follow. But it also found that "taken as a whole, Kerry has offered the same message ever since talk of attacking Iraq became a national conversation more than two years ago."

Even the Bush campaign had to edit Kerry's quotes egregiously out of context to make Kerry look inconsistent in an ad released Sept. 27, which we critiqued  that day.

He said he would support a MULTILATERAL effort (which it is) if the threat was imminent (which he has said it was), and dimplomatic efforts failed (the discretion of which was left to the President).

What I don't understand is, who are these countries he expects to join the "Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced" and how will they presently "bribed and coerced" feel about being commmanded by Lurch.

And why will they now be willing to have their soldiers die for this effort? Contracts????

BK

Bush has promised to replace retiring Supreme Court Justices with pro-lifers, who will outlaw abortion.

Bush is already pushing for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.

Bush has already replaced international condom education and distribution programs with abstinence programs.


It is only logical to expect a massive nationwide prosecution of hobbyists.  So if you vote for Bush and later on find yourself imprisoned in Camp X-Ray with no charges or smeared with excrement at Abu Ghraib, you will have only yourself to blame.

I'm serious.

judgin'.

What a distraction from the socially acceptable perverts we have in there now.  

/Zin

A fine piece of fearmongering though.....

And he has done so against prostitution "conspiracies" (but I can't mention that board on here).  He did this after 9/11, I will add, just when you'd think his priority would be on terrorism.  

There is no check and balance in the system for abusive prosecution, and plenty of reward for it with asset forfeiture.  Not to mention that defending oneself in a federal case is a major "fine" in and of itself.  

It's not fearmongering, Billkile.  I am afraid of Ashcroft, and I'm not afraid of Nambla.  I just feel disgust and pity about them.  

(Besides the fact, Tom Delay will pass all the laws Ashcroft needs, with Bush signing them.)

/Zin  

-- Modified on 10/3/2004 6:08:47 PM

I think that we all want the crack-head disease infested street walkers off the street and somehow given some kind of opportunity for drug treatment.  But with psychologically normal, clean, drug free providers that have customers that are the same, we want this hobby legal.

WHAT'S CRAZY IS THAT ALL OF THE BIG STINGS against the kind of providers we see are in big Democrat controlled cities that have lots of other types of social problems (drug selling,  youth gangs, terrible inner city schools, etc.) that should be addressed.  Yet, they waste valuable resources (cop time/payrollwhen they are needed for catching youth gang-bangers.

George Bush will not waste time going after/even addressing this issue.  It's a local issue.  And that's good cause we have to get going and make it legal.

if he could.  My opinion of his views, based on my view of his self-stated beliefs.

Even if he can't actually do it, why would we want to have a guy as sick as that as the Attorney General?

The national politicians in the federal government have a great influence on who is chosen as candidates in local politics, and who they choose to support rising through the ranks.  BTW, I don't like Ashcroft because I'm from Missouri.  I saw his rise from a local politician to what he is today. No, I don't think he's restrained by the Constitution from enforcing the Bible.  He sees the Constitution as a means of enforcing the Bible. He'll enforce the Bible where it's in conflict with the Constitution.

The Radical Conservative objective is not towards the kind of federalism you are describing.  They will keep it local, if local authorities effectively police behavior in their opinion.  If the hobby gains notice as a national movement, and the Christian Coalition complains, they will move to stomp on the hobby.  And Bush, Ashcroft and Delay especially.    

Moreover, voters do not split their political philosophies in the way you describe either.  Only on this board among conservatives do I see that rationalization made.  I don't think the same voters put politicians of one philosophy in national office and another philosophy in local office.  Frankly, I don't think the conservatives on this board really vote that way either.  They just hope it ends up that way.

/Zin

than NAMBLA. They are pretty well universally reviled but I'd place a fair sized wager they are conducting their campaigns in much the same way the KKK and other groups like them are conducting themselves. IOW, attaching themselves to other, more publically acceptable causes. But for the most part they are fringe freaks.

But Ashcroft does have mainstream support and a significant amount of power. THAT does make him dangerous.

I agree with what you said in a different post, something to the effect of enforcing the Bible thru the Constitution. Though I see liberals doing the same thing, expressing their chartible instincts via public policy. Either extreme is not good.

BK

I've not heard or seen anything from Ashcroft that would indicate he'd outlaw recreational sex, even if he could.

""why would we want to have a guy as sick as that as the Attorney General?""

I would not use the term sick, though he is quite zealous. Besides, he's a Bible thumper, as is Bush so they agree on a lot.