Reply
Tue 13 Jul, 2004 01:29 pm
Oh, the wicked webs we weave....
Quote:Kerry-Edwards Stonewall
LA Times Headlines
Kerry-Edwards Stonewall
If not murder, John F. Kerry and John Edwards have accused President Bush of something close to criminally negligent homicide in Iraq. "They were wrong and soldiers died because they were wrong," Kerry said of the Bush administration over the weekend.
This is strong language, but not unjustified. Last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report adds to the pile of studies and reportage that has undermined the key reasons Bush gave for going to war: Saddam Hussein's imperial designs, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction and so on.
The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with "hypothetical questions."
But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language.
After all, the issue raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee report is not whether the Bush administration bungled the prosecution of the war, or whether there should have been greater international cooperation, or whether the challenges of occupying and rebuilding the country were grossly underestimated. When Kerry says "they were wrong," he is referring to the administration's basic case for going to war. Kerry supported that decision. So did Edwards. Were they wrong? If they won't answer that question, they have no moral standing to criticize Bush.
Source
Boy, you're slinging **** furiously today in the hopes some of it will stick, aren't ya?
You bet, old chum... :wink:
I hate all this game-playing.
Why not just say they were wrong in entrusting the president with such a decision?
Although what it comes down to is whether or not this is true: "In the past, Kerry has dodged the question of his pro-war vote by saying that he intended to give Bush negotiating leverage and to encourage multilateral action, not to endorse a unilateral American invasion of Iraq.
Unfortunately, what he may have intended is not what he voted for. Furthermore, a vote in favor of the war resolution was unavoidably a statement that the various complaints against Hussein did justify going to war against him, if all else failed, whatever caveats and escape hatches were in any individual senator's head."
I would need to see that vote again, as written. I don't remember the wording, but I thought it was more as Kerry describes it.
I think they should admit that they were wrong and that they were going along with the flow. I think that they would find that voters would be forgiving of it as a lot of them did the same thing in their minds.
Even if they don't admit it, I think would forgive that too.
But if the republican party and the media keep trying to push the issue in various ways, they will have to say something that is the truth so that we can move on to more things that have to with things that effect now. Because it is embarrassing to keep hearing them stutter around trying to find something plausible to say to excuse it.
Oh well, maybe Moore will write them one of his 'shame on you' letters, surely.
How can a person flip-flop and stonewall at the same time?
The two seem incongrous...
Kerry can stonewall for five minutes, then flip...then stonewall again...then.....
I don't thinnk any of the senators, Republicans included, thought Bush was going to go off half-cocked and go in without UN support. As soon as he got the resolution, he started invading the place. He and the neo-cons planned to invade Iraq before he got into office. Anybopdy who believes their bullshit cover stories at this point has got to be in line for the Koolaid.
Kerry and Edwards are stonewalling on their vote? this is an outrage YET Cheney stonewalling on energy meetings, and his connection to Halliburton is what?
Bush stonewalls on everything, WMD which existed.........no he didn't say the "existed" but their were thoughts and plans coming to Saddam in dreams that would have allowed him to possibly someday when sanctions were lifted to maybe produce WMD again. That wasn't "stonewalling".
Or my Bush favorite " I didn't say imminent"
Then there was the Bush administration objections to the 9.11 commission which they "stonewalled" for close to a year. Along with the Department of Homeland Security.
I find it ironic that the press is SOOOOOOOOOO interested in trying to nail Kerry and Edwards on their votes yet they fail to go after Bush the man that actually went to war on his reasons for going.
Yes Kerry and Edwards are both politicans and YES they will avoid any issue or topic that could be used against them. Avoiding is the way of the Politican. Personally I think they should just put it this way.
" We TRUSTED the President to be honest and not take us into war irresponsibly, and we fucked up"! period.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace