| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2004/9/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33737 Activity:very high |
9/23 I apologise for thinking Kerry was always a peacenik wimp.
Kerry in favor of pre-emptive, unilateral attack against Iraq:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm
\_ When public opinion changes, I change my mind. What do you do
sir?
\_ i usually claim that my original position was misunderstood
and mischaracterize, and that i've had my current position
all along.
all along. this works even better when i can find some
sympathetic press to chime along.
\_ Okay guys, here's some news analysis for you. Take it for
what it is. Basically says that Kerry's Iraq position has
been remarkably consistent for years, if very "middle of the
road."
http://csua.org/u/96w
\_ like i said, it works better when there's sympathetic
press.
\_ Right, it's all a conspiracy of the libuhral media.
\_ You noticed, after all the Wall St. scandals,
analyst articles also detail the analyst's
relationship with the company. Why don't
news reporters and editorials at least self-
indentify their political leanings? Oh, because
they trained to be impartial and so their leanings
don't matter. Right.
\_ If they were truly impartial and interested in
the truth, they'd spend a lot more time dissecting
the propaganda that spews out of the White House.
\_ Let me guess, you would self-identify as a
Democrat or liberal?
\_ A social progressive who supported the
ouster of Saddam Hussein, just not the way
the President went about it.
\_ "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't
count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that
Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve
the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we
feel it's in our national interest."
Oh yea real consistent.
\_ Transcripts are not available. You're relying on a Republican
senator's memory. Pull trou, or get off my goddamn show.
\_ Read more carefully. He has a tape, and he shared it on
the radio, dummy.
\_ He could have faked the tape.
\_ See, that's just it. He has the tape. He's offered to
share it. It's not been reported that he did share it,
nor is there any unofficial transcript. It doesn't help
that this is being reported in a blurb column. It deserves
its own article.
\_ He's not a Dem.
\_ Or a Rep. seeking to prove that Iraq sought to buy
yellowcake from Nigeria.
\_ Nigeria != Niger. |
| 12/25 |
|
| www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm Kerry out attack During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr Kerry on the program. Mr King says the UN Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Hill harvest In passing the 2005 Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Congress this week handed itself a pay raise -- jacking up its annual salary nearly $4,000 above a current income of $158,000. It marks the sixth straight year that Congress has accepted an automatic pay raise. Jim Matheson, Utah Democrat, who last week made a procedural attempt to prevent the annual pay increase, but his measure was voted down 235 to 170. Does anybody care that the congressional paycheck is growing while the country is $422 billion in debt? "Members of Congress must think that money grows on trees," says Council for Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz, who agrees that "one of the many perks of being a member of Congress is that it is the only job in which you can apparently get away with giving yourself a pay raise during a time of increasing red ink." Flip-flopping Former New York Mayor Rudolph W Giuliani told President Bush this week that he is sorry. I said that with 64 days to go, John Kerry could change his mind five or six times about what to do in Iraq. Well, he's already changed his mind four or five times and I'm going to be proven wrong again because I think we're looking more like eight or nine times." Outlasting Moses "In all my years in the Senate, I have never seen the abusive tactics, shameless attacks, and polarizing and poisonous language they're now using in a desperate effort to cling to their narrow majority in Congress." Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, who was first elected to the Senate 42 years ago in 1962, referring to the Republicans Hairy Kerry So much for Sen. Seventy-six percent of respondents to a Grooming Lounge (where political-party heads as well as celebrities such as Bruce Willis and Elliot Gould get coiffed while in Washington) poll say President Bush has better hair than his rival. And don't think hair isn't important in this era of television campaigns, when elections can come down to whoever looks the part. Bushier-browed candidates, for example, have lost the popular vote in the past four presidential elections. And 92 percent of those surveyed think Mr Kerry has the most pronounced "eyebrows of mass destruction" of the two candidates. "In order to prevent history from repeating itself, we believe Kerry needs to have his eyebrows groomed," says Mike Gilman, co-founder of Grooming Lounge. Pence pending A group of more than 90 House conservatives who make up the House Republican Study Committee have named Indiana Rep. "I am deeply humbled to be elected to lead those in Congress I have long admired for their principled and conservative stands," says Mr Pence, who points out that his very first task is to get re-elected to a third term. Fans of this column will enjoy John McCaslin's new book, "Inside the Beltway: Offbeat Stories, Scoops, and Shenanigans From Around the Nation's Capital." |
| csua.org/u/96w -> www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL Chronicle Sections Washington -- No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq. As foreign policy emerged as a dominant issue in the Democratic primaries and later in the general election, Kerry clung to a nuanced, middle-of-the road -- yet largely consistent -- approach to Iraq. Over and over, Kerry enthusiastically supported a confrontation with Saddam Hussein even as he aggressively criticized Bush for the manner in which he did so. Kerry repeatedly described Hussein as a dangerous menace who must be disarmed or eliminated, demanded that the US build broad international support for any action in Iraq and insisted that the nation had better plan for the post-war peace. There were times when Kerry's emphasis shifted for what appear to be political reasons. In the fall of 2003, for example, when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean surged to the top of Democratic polls based on an anti-war platform, Kerry's criticism of the president grew stronger. There are many instances in which clumsy phrases and tortuously long explanations make Kerry difficult to follow. And there are periods, such as last week, when the sharpness of Kerry's words restating old positions seem to suggest a change. Yet 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. "Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,'' Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations. "If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community," Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,'' Kerry said. The crux of the flip-flopping charge is based on pitting Kerry's pointed criticism of the war against his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force, a vote the Democratic senator defends to this day. Republicans are not the only ones who characterize the vote as an endorsement of war. Many Democrats, including Dean, warned that a vote in favor of the resolution would be tantamount to giving Bush a blank check to go to war. Even today, many Democrats are aghast at Kerry's insistence that, knowing everything he knows now, he would cast the same vote. Kerry, who was one of 29 Democratic senators to support the resolution, said the vote was appropriate to strengthen the president's hand in negotiations, and he draws a distinction between his vote and an endorsement of the March 2003 attack. "Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq,'' Kerry said on the eve of the vote. "He voted for it,'' said Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie when asked Wednesday to back the charge that Kerry supported the war. "If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force,'' Bush said in September 2002. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,'' Kerry said regarding the Bush administration's request for more funding for the Iraq operation. The line has been used in Bush campaign commercials, and the campaign distributed a memo Tuesday suggesting the vote raises doubts about Kerry's commitment to US troops. The White House is aware that the statement does not reflect a contradiction but an inelegant way of defending a pair of Senate votes. Kerry voted for a measure that paid for the $87 billion by reducing tax cuts for those who earn more than $300,000. He voted against a measure that paid for the $87 billion by adding to the deficit. The biggest shifts in Kerry's language seem to appear at the high-water marks of the war -- shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 and after the capture of Hussein the following December -- when he seems less critical of the Bush policy. Two days after Bush stood before the "Mission Accomplished'' sign and declared major combat over, Kerry participated in a forum with rival Democratic presidential candidates. ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the candidates if the war was the right decision at the right time. "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity,'' Kerry said, "but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the words that Kerry will have the hardest time explaining today are those he uttered three days after Hussein was captured. Dean, who had emerged as Kerry's strongest challenger for the Democratic nomination, said that while Hussein's capture was good news, it had not "made America any safer. "Saddam Husein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. the satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, '' Kerry said. For a candidate who has been in elected office nearly a quarter of a century, Kerry has at times shown a remarkable inability to explain the nuances of his position. Asked by radio host Don Imus last week to explain how he could be so critical of the war yet stand by his vote to authorize the use of force, Kerry responded with a 324-word answer, including a discussion of no-fly zones and Iraqi tribal separatism. The response left Imus -- a self-described Kerry supporter -- perplexed. "I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox,'' Imus told listeners when the interview was over. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. My strong personal preference would have been for the administration ... |