Love Kerry's WMD Comment!!!!

I'm really loving this Kerry campaign! Today's news is all about Bush's attack ads. Just saw the reply come across CNN ticker. Kerry camp's response is that Bush has just launched "weapons of mass distortion". Now, while I've heard the phrase before, they couldn't have come back with anything more stinging than that!!! The tongue in cheek is beautiful---Mr. War President's big vulnerable spot is the WMD farce and any reference to it evokes images of "liar, liar". They are hanging Bush with a rope made out of "Bush". I want them to use this phraseology 10,000 times from here to November because it has all the ring of "it's the economy, Stupid", or the "Liar" tag the repukes put on Gore. Folks, we have a campaign staff that is tying Rove in knots. Where have these guys been?!!!! Bring it ON!!!!!

OUT and take back our country (WE, of course, will share...)

Finally! We're giving it back to them, they must be reeling after having the mudslinging all to themselves!

that they are being so aggressive and pithy!

Bush is being hung by his own record. We could run a squirrell and the people would still not want Bush.

...that takes a lot of the punch out of their smear tactics.

"They're coming out with negative ads tomorrow"
"They're going to smear me and here's how...."
"Watch for an October surprise..."

GReat great great~!

:kick:

but this is even better!

:headbang:
rocknation

That Kerry will restore Honor and Entegrity to the White House!

he could change the tone, too!!!

:bounce:

to pronounce the word "oil" in discussing the Iraq invasion.

IOW, he is only marginally better than Bush, as regards the entire subject of Iraq.

Let's not get carried away. Kerry is no "good guy." He is a war enabler, a lesser evil. He is preferable to Bush, but is just as much of a liar. In fact, his laughable attempts to justify his IWR vote are in some ways even worse than Bush, who at least is consistent.

Haven't you been paying attention? The whole IWR process was a game. Bush was going to invade Iraq with or without it. Everybody knew that. Our guys just gave bush the rope to hang himself.

that sort of "strategy," with the moral quality of the positions actually taken by Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, & Senator Byrd. What you would then have, would be a bunch of cynical jackals (like Kerry, according to the theory YOU are proposing) yukking it up because they "gave Bush enough rope to hang himself" in a big oh-so-funny political "game" -- compared to a few courageous representatives who tried their best to stop an unjust war from taking place, by telling the truth about it.

Of course, your theory is not true. Kerry voted for the war simply because he thought it would be the best way to position himself for his coming presidential race; and because he does not oppose US militarism or imperialism. So he is still a cynical jackal - but for reasons other than the ones you propose.

It blows their argument about pink tutu's and "enablers" to hell

You don't like Kerry, fine. A lot of people don't. But life as we know it is gone of Bush has 4 more years. So say what you want about Kerry and then vote for Bush and make sure you keep your mouth shut about anything he does to screw you!

evil, say what I want about him, & consider voting for him in November only if the race looks close - but doing so only because I agree that "life as we know it is gone if Bush gets 4 more years"?

Why does my criticizing Kerry's hypocrisy mean I have to vote for Bush?

Why does my recognizing that Kerry is the lesser evil mean I must pretend not to see his hypocrisy?

Would you care to document how Kerry is "just as much of a liar" as Bush...and would you care to document Bush's consistency on the war? (even the most casual observer knows he's changed his rationale at least three times)

his "rationale of the day" has shifted many times. Kerry, OTOH, is a basically pro-war senator trying sound anti-war at times, & critical of Bush's specific way of being pro-war at other times. Thus he has a foot in both camps. If you catch Kerry talking on some days, you could almost come away with the impression that he's against the war or the occupation - but he's not.

Kerry voted for the war & accepted as its grounds the Bush premise of a "WMD threat." Then he voted against the $87 B in the fall, yet is no opponent of the occupation. He criticizes Bush's MANAGEMENT, but not the fundamental position of occupying Iraq. Most dangerously, he has not to this day set forth ANY American motive for being in Iraq - such as oil or global/regional dominance, though obviously those things are a major part of it. Rather, he accepted the "WMD" cover story initially; and now that we're there, he accepts that we have to stay there.

When Kucinich challenged him in the LA debate to express direct opposition to the occupation, Kerry avoided answering. While Kucinich said MANY TIMES during the debate series that OIL was a major reason for the invasion & that the US had to relinqish any attempt to control Iraq's oil, in order to extricate ourselves, Kerry was completely silent on this matter. According to Kerry, the word "oil" does not exist, if we're talking about what the US is doing in Iraq. Kerry's discussion of the OIL aspect is exactly like Bush's: both pretend oil has nothing to do with it.

unless you are coming from the perspective of a pacifist, or are just seeking to obstinately distort JK's position. War as a last resort means war as a last resort.

Nor does DK feel that the US should just dump Iraq and get the hell out. Both are arguing for an internationalization, and not leaving it in the destabilized state that GWB created.

Yes. Kerry wanted war as a last resort, while Bush wanted it as a first resort. This is a difference between them. However, the EXPLICIT REASON for going to war at all - whether as first or last resort - according to Kerry, was the SAME as Bush's reason: Saddam's alleged WMD, his "refusal to disarm," & his "threat to the US," etc. Kerry never made the slightest effort to challenge that framing of the war issue.

PS - I didn't say that DK advocates "just dumping Iraq." I said he explicitly mentioned OIL as a basic reason for the war (unlike Kerry, who is too cowardly to mention that). I also said that DK explicitly says the US must relinquish claim to the OIL, as a prerequisite for allowing a UN internationalization to proceed (unlike Kerry, who has a problem pronouncing the word "oil" and the word "Iraq" in the same sentence).

Go ahead and excuse Bush and villify John Kerry. But here's the 'consistency' of GWB.

a. weapons of mass destruction yellowcake links to terra
b. oops weapons of mass destruction programs
c. oops weapons of mass destruction program related activities
oh but he was a bad bad bad man


OTOH Kerry against weapon proliferation, for diplomatic efforts, war as a last resort.
has been consistent from day one, says the same thing today.

honest (to idiots who haven't been paying attention), and wartime leader. Once bush's credibility is demolished, he's history. Then we can begin the real games. Investigations and prosecutions after he's out of office.

:toast:

As a former Dean supporter though, I hope he doesn't peak too early.

:evilgrin: