The Lies, foibles and misrepresentations of John Kerry

Kofi needs to practice what he preaches.

Last time I checked Kofi didn't invade anyone and use international law as an excuse.

Cycloptichorn

I like the header on this thread: Lies, Foibles and misrepresentations of John Kerry.

In fact I believe Kerry best represents himself.

Others do the job of misrepresenting him very well.

Bush on the other hand, both represents himself and misrepresents the American People simultaneously, and almost half the public doesn't realize it.

Kofi Anan does practice what he preaches. Cut the guy a break - and he's paid for his equanimity by being subjected to harassment by the Bush administration.

While you were checking Kofi for invading, he had his hand in Saddam's pocket---where he happened to find Jaques Chirac, BTW...

Amazes me how people hold Kofi up like he's above it all. He needs to go.

Let me echo that in case some one didn't quite get that...

For people who are quick to dismiss scandals, intrigue, and plotting for financial and political gain, you sure are quick to condemn someone else.

Perhaps you should try turning that critical eye towards your own party...

Cycloptichorn

<We get proof>

<Dems settle for gossip>

BUSH ATTACKS KERRY WHILE COZYING UP TO DICTATORS

President Bush earlier this week attacked his opponent, saying "It's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy."[1] Yet, it is President Bush who regularly declares his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world's most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his
ranch in Texas.

In June of 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as "my friend,"[2] even though the Saudi Arabian government has been investigated for its financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists[3] and is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's most oppressive regimes on the planet.[4]

In April, he referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as "my friend" and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying "I always look forward to visiting with him."[5] Bush gave this praise to a dictator, even though Human Rights Watch notes that government "torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic"[6] and the State Department says Mubarak has passed a Constitution in which the electorate is barred from being "presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates."[7]

In 2002, it was Bush who said "I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas."[8] Bush was inviting into his home a dictator who, according to the U.S. State Department, presides over a government that regularly engages in the "arbitrary or unlawful" murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities.[9]

Sources:

1. "President's Remarks at Victory 2004 Rally in New York City," The White House, 9/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57525.
2. "President Bush Holds Press Conference Following the G8 Summit," The White House, 6/10/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57526.
3. "Saudi Government Provided Aid to 9/11 Hijackers, Sources Say," Truthout.org, 8/02/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57527.
4. "Saudi Arabia: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57528.
5. "President Bush, Egyptian President Mubarak Meet with Reporters," The White House, 4/12/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57529.
6. "Egypt: Human Rights Background," Human Rights Watch, 10/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57530.
7. "Egypt: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57531.
8. "President Bush, Chinese President Jiang Zemin Discuss Iraq, N. Korea," The White House, 10/25/02, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57532.
9. "China: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2003," U.S. Department of State, 2/25/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3382691&l=57533.

Our local radio station has just fired Dr. Laura and put Sean Hannity in her stead in the early afternoon. I hadn't heard Sean's radio program before and was listening intermittently while working here this afternoon. I caught two fascinating exchanges:

One he was talking to a guy who had just put out a new Kerry ad accusing George Bush of keeping black kids out of college and intending to suppress the black vote in November. Sean repeatedly asked him to name one black person denied college or one Republican involved in suppressing the vote. Once a Republican was named, Sean would personally see that such person was thrown out of the party. Over about a 20-minute exchange, the guy would not answer the question but kept bringing up the party line about lost jobs, illegal war in Iraq, etc. etc. Again and again Sean asked him to name somebody, anybody to substantiate the ad and he never named a single name or even a group.

The next exchange was with two guys who had been fired--Sean seemed to think unfairly--for running a reality radio program that worked sort of like a scavenger hunt---couples were sent out to have sex in public places--in front of a hotdog vender, in Central Park, at Fox News, in a church, etc.--and then report back their experience. It was apparently highly successful until somebody filed suit to get it off the air. During the course of this exchange, Sean fervently defended Howard Stern too and thought he had been treated very unfairly.

It just goes to show I think that some stereotypes hold together better than others.

Hannity can never expect to get an answer to a question for one very good reason.

Hannity doesn't listen.

If Hannity asked for an example of thrity victims of discrimination in University admissions and there were five hundred of them, Hannity wouldn't relinquish enough air to hear one of them named.

Let's get real. Bush and the Media are in lockstep and my vote may not get counted.

Got to get down to it. Soldiers are running our lives.

Tin Soldiers and Bush is coming. . .

Heh.

Kerry Haters for Kerry dot com

"No need to hide in the Kerryhating closet anymore while you pretend to everyone that he'll be a great president. Here you are among friends. You can speak freely and honestly. You can admit: 'He's awful! And I'm for him!'"

VOTE FOR HIM BEFORE YOU VOTE AGAINST HIM

According to nimh's post above, maybe all we need is a good rain to get a Bush landslide. Who's going out in the rain to vote for a guy they can't stand?

Was interested to hear Kerry say he was against Kyoto. Now, a non-issue for Bush.

I don't think he exactly said he was against Kyoto, Lash. He said it was flawed, but he would not have walked away from it.

Kerry may not be the best choice, but IMHO George Bush has not been held accountable for the mess he made in Iraq. I choose to fire him. Kerry is the only viable option.

If I remember correctly, he said he was against it, wouldn't have signed it--but would have retooled it and offered his version.

Re: The Lies, foibles and misrepresentations of John Kerry


Why not accuse Kerry of lying? I might accuse the guy of foibles and misrepresentations, but I'd never accuse somebody that confused of lying. When the guy stands there claiming he voited for the military appropriation before he voted against it, he's basically DIH, in other words, he doesn't even have a position. It's kind of like the National Lampoon's spoof parody on Lamar Cranston (The Shadow) which showed him clouding HIS OWN mind to such an extent that Soviet guards took him for a harmless drunk and allowed him to stumble into the Kremlin unhindered.

gung, If you do enough research, you'll find that Bush would have vetoed that $87 billion himself. Please go do your homework before you go repeating one-sided flip-flops. When you find that Bush would have vetoed that $87 billion, go back and find out 'WHY' kERRY voted against that $87 billion. After you do that, come back and tell us what you learned. Until then, go spread your b.s. elsewhere.

Kerry's had two opportunities to say that in front of a nationwide audience now; why hasn't he?

For that matter, what self-respecting pol is going to take the hit for casting two idiotic votes like that when he can rely on the president vetoing the thing?

And YOU are accusing ME of spreading BS????????

If you'll look back, the 87 billion was in ADDITION to what the President had already said he would need, what Kerry and Edwards and others said was, Okay, you need more, let's try to find a way to pay for it by rolling back the tax cut on people making more the 200,000 a year. The administration said no, it will just go on the tab for the future with the rest of the tax cuts.

So, two things, one, they went to war before they were ready to go and had the money to pay for it and two, they refused to look for a legitimate way to pay the tab.

It's the usual Bush hypocrites at work. How much was that drug benefit program going to cost and who was going to be fired if they told the truth to Congress?

Who wants these thieves and incompetents leading them?

That's a legitimate political difference. Bush clearly believes that the government is in better financial shape allowing small businesses to survive, i.e. not taxing them into oblivion.

On the other hand, claiming that " I voted for the bill before I voted against it" is an indication of a confused state of mind.



We went into WW-II before we were ready to go also. You go into a war when it happens and when the need arises.




The incompetents in the picture are the clowns in charge of the previous administration. In the history of the world, there is no example of anybody being attacked for appearing too strong and resolute. You get attacked by appearing to be weak and feckless. Eight years of non response to terrorist attacks started all of this.