Sorry the picture wasn't steady
I saw Senator Kerry today...his office is within walking distance of my station...I walked there with my gear...and he had some things to say about the Vice President as well as the war in Iraq...He was referring to something Cheney had spoken about earlier today...
Cheney mentioned that some congressmen are trying to lead the American people to believe that the American soldiers were led to war by a
"deliberate falsehood"
Kerry says that the White House
(Bush and Cheney) has been misleading the American people...
and that the congress was not given all the information before they voted in favor of going into Iraq...when asked if he thought Bush lied...he would not bring himself to say yes...instead saying
"Never used that word...don't like the word..." and when a reporter asked what the difference was
"It's a question of intent...They've misled America and they're still misleading Americans... (slight pause) You can fight about the words." I told Hooter about that statement
and he said that is a pure example of why Kerry "didn't win the election...You have to be willing to hang yourself sometimes..."
(by which I learned in our further conversation meant he has to stand for something and make decisions)
1 comment:
Firstly, let me preface this by saying. . . . .
I'm right.
Secondly let me say . . .it's unlikely I'm going to comment on a blog about Harry Potter and house cats. . . just not gonna happen.
Thirdly, let me offer my take on the ineptitute of modern political communication (on both the left and right -- Kerry AND Bush). The Democrats have found themselves in a pickle because . . .simply put . . .they are the party of REACTIONARY rhetoric. Rather than try to be "opinion leaders," stating their arguments clearly and forcefully they only challenge the arguments of the Republicans. Hence John Kerry's quandry. If he admits Bush lied . . . he must neccessarily admit he believed such a lie, which makes him look foolish at best (or lazy at worst, because if you're a high ranking Senator you should have done your homework on the sources of our national security intel).
As for the elephants. . .here's the problem with their rhetoric: They prefer fear to logic. If Cheney and Rumsfeld's ultimate goal was to invade Iraq . . .they might have made a well reasoned argument not relying on the "wmd" scare tactic. It might have looked something like this:
1. The only way to stop the insidious spread of fundamentalist terrorism is to plant the seeds of democracy in the middle east.
2. The tragedy of 9-11 requires us to abandon our half-hearted policy of pursuing democracy DIPLOMATICALLY . . . in favor of a more aggressive policy which MAY include the use of force.
3. Our new policy will be guided by a ZERO-TOLERANCE approach to rouge regimes (i.e. regimes that defy UN sanctions). We can liken it to Giuliani's approach to crime in NYC. State sponsored small infractions (like firing rockets at planes patroling no-fly zones) can now be viewed as cause for invasion and "regime change." If you think about it, it was this "means justifies the ends" method that allowed NYC to clean up its streets. Loitering may not be a serious offence, but by dealing with it harshly you rid the streets of the people who are more likely to commit more serious crimes. In the same way. . .. denying weapons inspectors may seem insignificant, but by dealing with it harshly. . you demonstrate you will find ANY AND EVERY excuse to attack fascism in favor of liberty.
This, is an argument that employs logic over fear . . .. and make no mistake, in the days and months after September 11th, the people of this country would have been receptive to it. Instead the party in power decided it was easier to convince John Kerry and the donkeys that Saddam had a big pile of nuclear weapons burried in the Iraqi desert. Call me crazy, but from day one. . . I never bought it.
Post a Comment