Sunday, October 03, 2004
Origin of a Lie
As I am sure most of you have read or heard, BushCo's spin from the debate is to go after the "Global Test" comment made by Kerry. For the sake of honesty, here is the full point Kerry made:
What is truly most disheartening is the lack of respect BushCo has for the telling the county the truth. What Kerry said he would do is if he were to wage pre-emptive war he would make sure that before he started it he would have ready the proof and the rationale to support his actions. That is what BuchCo is mocking. That is what I think is the most important reason Bush is a horrible President. He took us to war without knowing that what he was doing was correct. He wanted to go to war, and grabbed on to any rationale that might give him PR cover to keep us logical people of his back. You know us, the ones, like Colin Powel, who only like to wage wars where the USA is directly threatened or where an ally is directly threatened, or when we have honest purposes and justice on our side. Declaring yourself judge, jury, and revenge seeker in chief is not an honest purpose. "Gathering" threats are something that cause people to be prepared, but not to strike. If you think you are oing to be attacked by Iraq, that is just the cover some other foe would want to have when they come in to get you. But, if you goal is just to control all of the Muslim world, or at least those with oil, then he, nothing matters but the black gold and bottom line. The means are just a way to get what you want, and getting what you want is bedrock dogma for BushCo. Oh, when I say "you" getting what "you" want, you can't be one of "them" as defined by BushCo. "Them" knows what I am talking about.
Q: What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?Now this has been turned into this talking point from BushCo:
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Today, Bush-Cheney '04 announced the release of the campaign's newest television advertisement, "Global Test." The ad contrasts the Kerry doctrine that America must pass a 'global test' before defending itself with President Bush's belief that decisions about defending America should be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals.Now, in Kerry's comment above where does it say anything about a having to go to foreign nations before defending America? It doesn't. That is how political lies are started. Misrepresent the truth, and then the usually idiots will eat up the lies like good brownshirts.
What is truly most disheartening is the lack of respect BushCo has for the telling the county the truth. What Kerry said he would do is if he were to wage pre-emptive war he would make sure that before he started it he would have ready the proof and the rationale to support his actions. That is what BuchCo is mocking. That is what I think is the most important reason Bush is a horrible President. He took us to war without knowing that what he was doing was correct. He wanted to go to war, and grabbed on to any rationale that might give him PR cover to keep us logical people of his back. You know us, the ones, like Colin Powel, who only like to wage wars where the USA is directly threatened or where an ally is directly threatened, or when we have honest purposes and justice on our side. Declaring yourself judge, jury, and revenge seeker in chief is not an honest purpose. "Gathering" threats are something that cause people to be prepared, but not to strike. If you think you are oing to be attacked by Iraq, that is just the cover some other foe would want to have when they come in to get you. But, if you goal is just to control all of the Muslim world, or at least those with oil, then he, nothing matters but the black gold and bottom line. The means are just a way to get what you want, and getting what you want is bedrock dogma for BushCo. Oh, when I say "you" getting what "you" want, you can't be one of "them" as defined by BushCo. "Them" knows what I am talking about.
Anarchists in Cleveland for VP Debate
A group called Don't Just Vote: Resist! is planning a protest at the Vice-Presidential debate in Cleveland this week. Now if these idiots cause a riot, like some will hope to, I hope everyone knows, and those who read this post will, these guys are not Kerry fans. They are frankly misguided kids, looking for attention from mommy and daddy.
As a liberal I really have disdain for people who push a neo-communist agenda hidden behind one of the stupidest concepts in political history: anarchism. These kids are not really anarchists, they are just communists, but on they just don't grasp the hate intertwined with a system of government that is forced on a populace, as was done in the USSR. They might argue that they want communism 'voted' in, but how can one give up self-determination, where you own yourself under one system and then are the war of the state and not call it forced?
What I find most hilarious is when right-wingers like to label us liberals as communists or socialists, usually by pointing to groups like the one holding the protest. When liberals point out the extremists in the GOP, like the guy running for Senate in Oklahoma for the GOP, the right wing shoots back with International ANSWER website links. When the nuts are inside the party instead of out in the streets trying to break windows, I think the comparison stops dead in its tracks. The Republican Party is run by the extremists and much of their base is on the fringe of the polite society on many issues. The Dems are and have for 60 years been a party of coalitions, where difference is not only the norm, but a necessity.
As a liberal I really have disdain for people who push a neo-communist agenda hidden behind one of the stupidest concepts in political history: anarchism. These kids are not really anarchists, they are just communists, but on they just don't grasp the hate intertwined with a system of government that is forced on a populace, as was done in the USSR. They might argue that they want communism 'voted' in, but how can one give up self-determination, where you own yourself under one system and then are the war of the state and not call it forced?
What I find most hilarious is when right-wingers like to label us liberals as communists or socialists, usually by pointing to groups like the one holding the protest. When liberals point out the extremists in the GOP, like the guy running for Senate in Oklahoma for the GOP, the right wing shoots back with International ANSWER website links. When the nuts are inside the party instead of out in the streets trying to break windows, I think the comparison stops dead in its tracks. The Republican Party is run by the extremists and much of their base is on the fringe of the polite society on many issues. The Dems are and have for 60 years been a party of coalitions, where difference is not only the norm, but a necessity.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Rucker vs. Deters
Fanon Rucker and Joe Deters will face off in a debate next Wednesday at high noon at Christ Church on 4th Street in Downtown Cincinnati. Last week Eve Bolton faced off against Pat DeWine and Pat took a few hits.
Voting Irregularities
We have our first Blunder in Hamilton County voting. I hope no one will submit both ballots and thus void their votes. I hope they have a simple way to understand which ballot to use and get more time to turn in their ballot if needed.
Morning After Debate Spin
Well, I am now awake and I wading through the day after spin. The FOX News Morning show for idiots had a guy on talking about watching the debate with the sound down looking at the body language. I guess the issues just don't matter to FOX.
Also, Did Bush put forth any ideas about what he was going to do Iraq? All he seemed to do was be on the defensive. Did he say anything about what he was going to do or for that matter give any detail as to what the hell was going on? That to me was where Bush failed on the issues: no plan for the future. Kerry's plan is vague and it is limited by what Bush has already gotten us into, but he talked about it and talked about what he would have done differently. Bush just repeated phrases like a parrot. Kerry hit hard, but did it in a way to show he could do anything Bush could do and do it better.
Also, Did Bush put forth any ideas about what he was going to do Iraq? All he seemed to do was be on the defensive. Did he say anything about what he was going to do or for that matter give any detail as to what the hell was going on? That to me was where Bush failed on the issues: no plan for the future. Kerry's plan is vague and it is limited by what Bush has already gotten us into, but he talked about it and talked about what he would have done differently. Bush just repeated phrases like a parrot. Kerry hit hard, but did it in a way to show he could do anything Bush could do and do it better.
Kerry Won
Well, from all points of view or perspectives, Kerry won the debate. He won the style points, he won the presence points, and he won on rhetoric. Bush was phoning it in. He looked very bland. He did not make huge mistakes, but he was horrid. On expectations, Kerry won his most important talking point. He was presidential. He hit hard, but avoided the blow-back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)