Tell the World: Bush Distorted The Truth
Today John Kerry released a statement responding to George Bush's remarks by saying, "Today, we heard more of the same distortions from the President about the situation in Iraq." I wish this was a verbal, televised comment rather than a written statement, but I am glad he pointed out that George Bush is distorting the truth.
Just as the Republicans keep repeating their false claim that Kerry flip-flops, Kerry and our surrogates need to keep repeating the fact that George Bush is distorting the truth. To some degree this could sound like whining, such as Bob Dole's request to quite lying about his record. However, since distortions of the truth are the basis of Bush's campaign this is unavoidable. The voters must also be made to realize that all the stories they are hearing about John Kerry are simply not true. Without hearing denials, many are accepting the lies as fact.
Kerry needs to keep hammering Bush for distorting the truth--and then give the truth. Perhaps a better phrase than distorting the truth can be substituted, but however it is phrased I'd repeat this over and over. Here are just a handful of examples where this can be done.
As John Kerry said today, George Bush is distorting the truth about the situation in Iraq, and then he told what is really going on.
George Bush distorted the truth for his reasons for going into Iraq--there was no WMD and we were not at an imminent risk. Going to war unnecessarily diverted funds Kerry would have used for both the real war on terrorism and for solving our problems at home.
George Bush distorted the truth about Kerry's vote on authorizing force in Iraq. Kerry voted to authorize force as a last resort so that George Bush could go back to the UN and force Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. Once the inspectors were back, there was no longer a need to invade as Bush did. John Kerry thought George Bush needed to carry a big stick, but didn't think he was so foolish to use it when no longer needed. Before the vote, George Bush himself stated that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."
George Bush distorted the truth on John Kerry's vote for the $87 billion dollars for the Iraq war. This was a dispute over how the money would be funded, not a disagreement over supporting the troops. Kerry approved of the $87 billion initially, but voted against the appropriation when the manner of funding it changed. George Bush threatened to veto this same bill if the manner of funding it changed--would this mean he did not support the troops? Point out that John Kerry supports the troops, but George Bush is the one who has been cutting their benefits.
George Bush distorted the truth when he said John Kerry's health care program would be a government take over. Kerry's plan gives tax benefits to business--something George Bush usually backs. There is no new government bureaucracy in Kerry's plan.
George Bush distorted the truth when he says his plan will put doctors and nurses in charge of medical decisions instead of people in government. It is George Bush who is interfering with stem cell research which could provide cures for problems such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and diabetes It is George Bush who has tried to force seniors into Medicare HMO's where they (and their doctors) would have their decisions second guessed by HMO employees. Having medical decisions made by HMO's is no better than having decisions made by government. John Kerry opposes both.
You get the idea. Combine the point that Bush is distorting the truth with Kerry's actual beliefs.
Just as the Republicans keep repeating their false claim that Kerry flip-flops, Kerry and our surrogates need to keep repeating the fact that George Bush is distorting the truth. To some degree this could sound like whining, such as Bob Dole's request to quite lying about his record. However, since distortions of the truth are the basis of Bush's campaign this is unavoidable. The voters must also be made to realize that all the stories they are hearing about John Kerry are simply not true. Without hearing denials, many are accepting the lies as fact.
Kerry needs to keep hammering Bush for distorting the truth--and then give the truth. Perhaps a better phrase than distorting the truth can be substituted, but however it is phrased I'd repeat this over and over. Here are just a handful of examples where this can be done.
As John Kerry said today, George Bush is distorting the truth about the situation in Iraq, and then he told what is really going on.
George Bush distorted the truth for his reasons for going into Iraq--there was no WMD and we were not at an imminent risk. Going to war unnecessarily diverted funds Kerry would have used for both the real war on terrorism and for solving our problems at home.
George Bush distorted the truth about Kerry's vote on authorizing force in Iraq. Kerry voted to authorize force as a last resort so that George Bush could go back to the UN and force Saddam to allow the inspectors back in. Once the inspectors were back, there was no longer a need to invade as Bush did. John Kerry thought George Bush needed to carry a big stick, but didn't think he was so foolish to use it when no longer needed. Before the vote, George Bush himself stated that "approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."
George Bush distorted the truth on John Kerry's vote for the $87 billion dollars for the Iraq war. This was a dispute over how the money would be funded, not a disagreement over supporting the troops. Kerry approved of the $87 billion initially, but voted against the appropriation when the manner of funding it changed. George Bush threatened to veto this same bill if the manner of funding it changed--would this mean he did not support the troops? Point out that John Kerry supports the troops, but George Bush is the one who has been cutting their benefits.
George Bush distorted the truth when he said John Kerry's health care program would be a government take over. Kerry's plan gives tax benefits to business--something George Bush usually backs. There is no new government bureaucracy in Kerry's plan.
George Bush distorted the truth when he says his plan will put doctors and nurses in charge of medical decisions instead of people in government. It is George Bush who is interfering with stem cell research which could provide cures for problems such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, and diabetes It is George Bush who has tried to force seniors into Medicare HMO's where they (and their doctors) would have their decisions second guessed by HMO employees. Having medical decisions made by HMO's is no better than having decisions made by government. John Kerry opposes both.
You get the idea. Combine the point that Bush is distorting the truth with Kerry's actual beliefs.
posted by Ron Chusid at 5:06 PM
8 Comments:
Ok,
I say this to you now, I hope you all understand. No matter who you vote for listen. I do not understand what is going on, I am a soldier and have been for 23 years. I ahve been in combat zones 3 times. Almost 2 years time in areas such as Albania, Kosovo and Iraq, heading back this year. The biggest issue I have after serving under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. In one way or another there were ways to respect them. I have a real hard time respecting some one who tuns on his fellow veterans, and throws back his ribbons and medals? The 30-40 years later uses his service as a platform to be my commnader-in-chief??? He spent 4 months in Vietnam, my step-father spent a year. He was a humble man and of course no politician. Mr Kerry somehow and I was not there of course, but in my experience it is highly unlikely some one could make so many achievements in such a short time. Hell it took us months to get some just one of the numerous awards he was awarded???? Mr Bush is not perfect, I am not a republican. But at least he is real to me... I also have no clue on how Mr Kerry will do better? He is to buisy bashing the other side. He needs to tell his plan?????
Ron.
Your idear is as good as any. I have no clue why the JK campaign cannot figure out "something" like what you suggest AND DO IT. The campaign is walking in 4/4 time while the Shrub is doing 16 beats to the measure.
rand beers "it didnt have to be like this" or whatever is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. We are saying words like this and BushCo is saying things like "vote for the other guy and the evil doers will come".
Worse I have watched JK in the debates with Weld. Sorry George Bush is no William Weld. Weld is a liberal Republican who has no idear how to go for the juggler and kill. I hope that the debates go well but if Kerry pursues the same strategery in the debates with Bush as he did with Weld...turn out the lights.
I dont quite get it. Shrub did this to Richards here in Texas, he did it to McCain in 2000, he did it to Gore in 2000, he did it to Cleland et al in 2002 and he (Rove) are just pistol whipping us. When is someone from the campaign going to figure out that what they are doing isnt working.
And thats what scares me. They are doing the same thing in the campaign that Shrub is doing in Iraq...not viewing objective evidence of how their theories are working.
Your idears are a good one...to bad the current campaign doesnt have the guts to run them.
Robert G. Oler cvn65vf94@hotmail.com
John Kerry served two tours of duty, not just four months. HIs position on the swift boat was one of the more dangerous ones, making the number of medals won during that time not unexpected. Even more significant than arguing based upon theories as to what is possible during the time period is that, despite the claims of the GOP operatives, Kerry's military record is well documented with the actual witnesses to the events backing Kerry's reports.
The documented evidence is clear that John Kerry was a hero in Vietnam. Considering the nature of the Vietnam war, I also consider him to be a hero for his efforts to protest the war, help to end the war sooner, and save the lives of those who would have been sent to Vietnam if not for his efforts.
I am not impressed with campaign rhetoric or promises. However, I think it is important to compare what a nominee says during a campaign versus their actions outside of a campaign. The questions I have are:
1. If the previous administration had been more 'proactive' after the first World Trade Center bombing, as well as the other terrorist acts, could we have been better prepared, even possibly prevented, the horror of 9-11? Obviously, we will never know. I just do not see John Kerry as having the courage or the leadership needed to place the welfare of our country above his own political ambition.
John Kerry has shown leadership on terrorism. Kerry warned about terrorism for years before people like George Bush took the problem seriously, even writing a book which warned about the danger.
It was Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush who ignored terrorism. Bill Clinton was the first President to respond to the terrorist threat and attempt to go after al Qaeda, despite opposition from the GOP Congressional leadership.
Clinton left Bush with recommendations for going after a Qaeda which he ignored. Bush received intelligence briefings warning about an imminent threat, which he also ignored. It was incompetence on George Bush's part which contributed to the success of the 9/11 attacks.
Bush failed to peform his duties as President to defend the country prior to 9/11, and subsequently has squandered all opportunities to respond to the threat. In light of repeated failures on national security, it is time for someone new.
Rocketman / Robert Oler...
Here's a message for you from the Kerrygoddess...
If you are truly supporting Kerry and truly plan to vote for him as you have intimated in the past, both here and on my blog... don't be coming around here whining any more about John Kerry or the campaign.
Get out of the damn cockpit and do something to help this campaign!
If you are here for no other reason than to disrupt this campaign, then I suggest you pack your bags for a long flight into the Bermuda Triangle and don't be posting anymore of your drivel on my Blog!
Pamela
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/
Posted by kerrygoddess at September 18, 2004 03:12 AM
I'm sorry to say this, but you'll be eating those words come Nov 2nd.
Democrats won't be having anymore of what Bush has been feeding us. If you are for Kerry let's hear it. If not talk airplanes.
Posted by kerrygoddess at September 18, 2004 02:41 AM <<
I saw this on the Kerry blog and then I saw it here.
I dont know what you base it on. I am always reluctant to state "what I am doing" in this campaign because everytime I take the hook and do it then the people who were beating me over the head for not telling them what I am doing then say "your bragging".
Two points. And I took this off the kerry blog because its the closest I can come to sending an email to you personally.
First saying the demonstrations in NY were a waste isnt being anti Kerry. It is stating a fact. None of the people who put those things together really thought much about helping Kerry. Go look at the polls your quoting on the Kerry blog (the ones that say Shrub had a great convention)...and wonder why they are saying that. JK before the convention (RNC) was either equal to or climbing up in the "able to handle Iraq" category equal to Bush. Now in even the polls where we hold even or slightly ahead in the horserace we have sunk.
The demonstations more or less reminded Americans (as did the GOP) that Kerry how to be kind has not distanced himself effectivly from the policies that took us into war. He may have for you, he may have for Ron and a bunch of bloggers...but there is that 20 point gap in some polls and its there for a reason.
In addition the demonstrations did not leave a good impression with the American people. There is not a poll that says that they did.
HOWEVER saying that the demonstrations were a bust does not detract in any way from my support of John Kerry. I live in a red state (Texas...and yes I travel a lot probably more then most do). However I know people and am activly campaigning for JK.
In addition I am heavily working in the Morrison for 22 campaign...to replace Tom DeLay. I make phone calls and block walk most afternoons. After that I dont need to tell you what I am doing in this election.
The polls you post on the kerry blog show us behind. We were ahead before the convention. A lot want to blame it on the media...but its not them. The retooling of the campaign more or less proves that.
I dont think the situation is terminal but when some start claiming they alone can define a Kerry supporter thats a bad sign.
Look I didnt bring up the flying. The other guy did. I dont see thats much different then the other non political stuff that is brought up on the blog.
I am not a cheerleader. Thats Shrub. I have to many of my friends in Iraq to be that.
Robert G. Oler cvn65vf94@hotmail.com
Robert
The point is that people on the Kerry Blog really get that posting negative critcisms of Kerry or the campaign are hurtful to the campaign. We've seen recently and through this election, including the primaries that the media uses the blogs as a source and a pulse on the campaign.
You don't help the campaign by posting your criticisms there, you hurt it. That's why people have repeatedly asked you stop doing so. If you truly are working on the ground to help the campaign than show it on the blog. It's commonsense Robert and quite frankly I don't think you are naive so I don't understand why you persist in this.
You're cheerleading for Bush when you outwardly critisize Kerry on his Blog. Wake up and smell the coffee, Robert.
Post a Comment
<< Home