September 7, 2004
TRUE LIES:
That Didn't Take Long (To Show Bush et. al. Were Fibbing) (David Corn, BushLies.Com)
What does it say about a presidential candidate, his campaign and his party, if upon the completion of the national convention at least two newspapers publish stories loaded with examples of instances when the candidate and his supporters spoke falsehoods about his opponent?The day after Bush's acceptance speech (for a review see the entry below), The Washington Post and The New York Times each ran articles demonstrating that the Bush campaign had distorted Kerry's record. The Post noted:
"Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements that he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims--such as his votes on military programs--are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign."
For instance, the paper reported, "Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech...but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era."
He opposed the weapons, no? Posted by Orrin Judd at September 7, 2004 12:21 PM
It's not the 1990 vote, Mr. Corn, it's the 1984 campaign memo.
Posted by: Sandy P at September 7, 2004 12:29 PMA very minor quibble, but in Corn's headline, a period is placed after both et. and al., which is incorrect.
"Et" is not an abbreviation, it's a complete Latin word.
And yes, Kerry's instinct is to avoid armed conflict, and the best way that he sees to do that is to avoid attracting attention by being bigger and badder.
However, oj, given your views on Fight Club and Chuck Palahniuk's other works, I wonder why you seem to support a militant America ?
Kerry's voting record and public statements are there for everyone to see. I haven't got the slightest idea what David Corn is trying to say.
Kerry has one of the most dovish records seen in the Senate in the last two decades, as bad as Teddy and Wellstone, and worse than Boxer or Feingold. All one has to do is look at the Almanacs of American Politics for the last two decades and mine the info.
Posted by: Bart at September 7, 2004 1:01 PMMichael:
I don't. He was right to vote against every system he did after we won the Cold War. We should have reduced the miltary farther and faster than we did. Iraq would be in better shape today had we just nuked Baghdad in the decapitation strike.
Posted by: oj at September 7, 2004 1:37 PMWhat does it say about those newspapers, is another good question...
Posted by: brian at September 7, 2004 2:12 PM"Iraq would be in better shape today had we just nuked Baghdad in the decapitation strike."
That is sick.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at September 7, 2004 2:44 PMWar is sick. But you get better.
Posted by: oj at September 7, 2004 2:54 PMSandy has it right.
Posted by: rdeat at September 7, 2004 5:23 PMWouldn't nuking Baghdad turn every person's hand against us ?
The US doesn't need any allies, or even any world trade, but the costs of having neither would be bitter, very bitter indeed.
Far higher than the costs of the weapons systems that Kerry failed to derail.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 8, 2004 10:41 AMMichael:
You think the Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and French won't trade with us because we nuke someone? Where have you been?
Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 10:46 AMIn the long run, they will, but in the short run, no, they won't, or at least, they'll stop buying American exports, including debt.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 8, 2004 5:22 PMBunk. There's nowhere else to put the money.
Posted by: oj at September 8, 2004 8:02 PMYou have a very odd blind spot.
If French wine exports to the US collapsed because the French government opposed America diplomatically over Iraq, what makes you think that the rest of the world will flock to American movies or buy American heavy equipment if they're bug-eyed with outrage over nuking Baghdad ?
As for there being "nowhere else to put the money", America dominates world commerce, it's not the whole of world commerce. There are plenty of alternative places to buy whatever one needs.
Why do you believe that confidence in the US dollar, (which is, after all, just confidence in the US economy), would continue ?
Without confidence in the dollar, why buy US debt ?
Many people, organizations, and governments might decide that Europe, Russia, China, or even Africa is a better place for investment.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 9, 2004 6:29 PMIf the U.S. used nukes and folks turned against us, which of our enemies' currencies would you invest in?
Posted by: oj at September 9, 2004 6:37 PMI'd buy a basket of Euros, British Pounds, Swiss Francs, Australian Dollars, and Yen.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 10, 2004 7:08 AMDid you buy Reichsmarks when we started war with the Nazis?
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2004 7:26 AM