Saturday, September 11, 2004

Web Site Refutes Bush Lies on Kerry's Iraq Positions

A new web site summarizes John Kerry's statements and votes regarding Iraq to refute the Bush claims that Kerry has changed his position or has not voted to support the troops. The site is at:

The site contains quotes from John Kerry which explain why he voted to grant the President authorization to use force as a last resort--which is quite different from voting to go to war. Other quoted statements show how Kerry would have handled the situation quite differently.

The quotes show that Kerry has been consistent in his position on Iraq in contrast to the claims for the Bush campaign. Of course Bush is forced to run a campaign based upon distorting Kerry's positions as he cannot run on his own failed record.

The site also looks at the vote for funding the war, refuting the charges that Kerry voted against weapons systems or has failed to support the troops . I find this falso charge from the Bush camapign particularly ironic considering that it is George Bush who has repeatedly supported cut backs in support for the troops and veterans.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the election were held today, John Kerry would lose by between 88 and 120 electoral votes. The reason is simple: The central vulnerability of this president -- the central issue of this campaign -- is the Iraq war. And Kerry has nothing left to say.
Why? Because, until now, he has said everything conceivable regarding Iraq. Having taken every possible position on the war, there is nothing he can say now that is even remotely credible. If he had simply admitted that he had made a mistake in supporting the war, he might have become an antiwar candidate. But having taken a dozen positions, he has nowhere to go.
He now calls Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." But, of course, he voted to authorize the war. And shortly after the fall of Baghdad he emphatically repeated his approval of the war: "It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him."
When Don Imus asked him this week, "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" Kerry responded: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that." But just last month he said that even if he had known then what he knows now, he would have voted for the war resolution.
Is Iraq part of the war on terrorism or a cynical distraction from it? "And everything [Bush] did in Iraq, he's going to try to persuade people it has to do with terror, even though everybody here knows that it has nothing whatsoever to do with al Qaeda and everything to do with an agenda that they had preset, determined."
That was April 2004. Of course, shortly after Sept. 11, Kerry was saying the opposite. "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally," he said in December 2001. "This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . . . Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [with], for instance, Saddam Hussein."
So then Hussein was part of the war on terrorism -- a "for instance" in fighting "terrorism globally." Kerry temporarily returned to that position last week when he marked the 1,000th American death in Iraq by saying the troops have "given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, in the war on terror."
How did Kerry get to this point of total meltdown? He started out his political career voting his conscience on national security issues. During the 1980s he was a consistent, dovish liberal Democrat: pro-nuclear freeze, anti-Star Wars, against the Reagan defense buildup, against the war in Nicaragua. And then he joined the overwhelming majority of his party in voting against the Persian Gulf War.
That turned out to be a mistake. And Kerry suffered for it. The very next year he had to watch as Al Gore, who got the Gulf War right, was chosen for the 1992 Democratic ticket, a spot for which Kerry had been on the short list.
Kerry learned his political lesson. Or thought he did. So when the Iraq war came around, he did not want to be caught on the wrong side of another success. He voted yes.
But then things went wrong both for the war and for him. What did he do? With Howard Dean rocketing toward the Democratic nomination, Kerry played to his deeply antiwar party by voting against the $87 billion to fund the occupation.
Two months later, with Saddam Hussein caught and the war looking better, Kerry maneuvered again, slamming Dean with: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
Kerry is now back to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," a line lifted from Dean himself. So we are not better off with Hussein deposed after all.
These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue. When Kerry went off windsurfing during the Republican convention, Jay Leno noted that even Kerry's hobbies depend on wind direction. Kerry on the war has become an object not only of derision but of irreconcilable suspicion. What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?

5:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vicious campaign to cover up the truth

I don't have any media access, so if you can ask journalists within your reach to be more responsible when they choose to disparage us, it will probably benefit us all. I am a blogger, the media has distorted and perverted the very essence of my existence and I therefore believe that it is the responsibility and the duty of every journalist to respond to my complaints.

The media has made bloggers a national concern and having done so in an extremely deceptive manner, journalists who claim to understand bloggers ought to prove the point through logic ansd reason because the current tendency to misrepresent the core of our existence is absolutely repugnant. I do not pretend to speak for every blogger, but I demand equal bandwith, and that puts us all in the face of every journalist who believes that our concerns are a national issue. We are bloggers. The media ignores us because we hate pompous, arrogant journalists who think that they have an exclusive window on the truth. The media only discovers us when it suits the agenda of some well oiled, propaganda machine that seeks to give us credit, for the sake of advancing a perverse agenda. We are being used and we absolutely reject the repugnant fools who target journalists like Dan Rather in our name. Dan Rather is nothing more and nothing less than a scapegoat, and any journalist who does not make that absolutely clear, is not blogger friendly. The suggestion that a blogger, any blogger, has the power to instantly convince the world that a CBS news story is based on forged documents, is purely fraudulent. It is indeed quite comical to claim that a well known blogger who just by coincidence is a GOP attorney, waits for Dan Rather's show to air and within minutes, posts the accusation that documents which contain credible allegations are forgeries. Make absolutely no mistake about it, if a story, any story, is instantly exposed as a "hoax" within hours of its breaking, it is due to the obsession to dictate the truth, and if you doubt that, ask ANY blogger who understands how the Internet works and how it doesn't. If our knowledge about bloggers does not convince you, our knowledge about "Buckhead" the blogger who led the charge against the "Liberal" media, should. Buckhead is the GOP lawyer who filed suit to have President Clinton disbarred in Arkansas and his proven, politically motivated capacity to target and destroy, speaks for itself. The massive delusion of those who currently claim that bloggers successfully scaled the citadel of the mainstream media is obscene because the exact opposite has happened. The mainstream media is essentially using a blogger to promote its own ideology, and this is nothing more and
nothing less than the willful denial to obscure the fact that the current President of the United States has lead such an absolutely disgraceful past, that it takes a lunatic fringe blogger, to rescue his reputation. Real bloggers are not in bed with a "mainstream" media that routinely ignores, distorts and manipulates the truth. CNN just reported that 56% believe that the media is more Conservative than Liberal, and this very same, "mainstream" media spends a disproportionate amount of time promoting a Liberal media bias that does not exist. You cannot be any more biased or transparent than that, and the claim that bloggers flushed out the facts and destroyed Dan Rather's reputation in the process, is equally reckless. We denounce the obsession to credit bloggers or to connect dots the way John Ashcroft's incompetent, Justice Department does. For example, the CBS controversy has generated the gut-wrenching, back-slapping laughter provoking claim that fraud artist, Bill Burkett is a Democratic strategist who is connected to the John Kerry campaign. Karl Rove has evidently trained Bill Burkett well. You see, Burkett had an innocuous conversation with Joe Lockhart, and we are now supposed to believe that the DNC is responsible for fabricating George Bush's National Guard records. Karl Rove ought to investigate his own track record because his fingerprints are all over this one, and forging Government documents holds a minimum 10 year jail sentence. Why doesn't Attorney General, John Ascroft, arrest the culprit or culprits who have tampered with the President's National Guard documents? Needless to say, Bush is too embarrassed to fully account for his service during the Vietnam War, and the
obsession to divert attention away from the well publicized allegation that he ignored National Guard duty standards and demands is not a hoax. The well oiled criminal operation that is supposed to cover up the fact that Bush did not fulfill his National Guard duties in an acceptable manner is absolutely authentic. But we are not supposed to be able to prove anything
because the documents that are necessary to expose the consequence of Bush's less than honorable duty have been altered. Needless to say, now that Dan Rather has been vigorously attacked over the authenticity of relatively innocuous documents, he will probably not dig any further, because as long as the Bush Justice Department fails to arrest the criminals who tamper
with official, government records, Dan Rather is not in a position to certify authenticity. That is the real scandal here, how did all the journalists who are currently scapegoating Dan Rather, miss it? Karl Rove may think that he has successfully obscured the truth through the false claim that the Kerry campaign has forged unflattering, National Guard Duty documents,
but we understand his delusion. Now that his boss is President, he thinks he can get away with everything. The fact is, the Kerry campaign does not have to forge documents to verify George Bush's delinquency from assigned, National Guard duty. Bush was clearly AWOL from the National Guard while many of his peers were drafted and sent to fight in Vietnam, and if altered,
government documents suggest otherwise, then the Government of the United states should hold the culprits accountable. If this Government thinks that it can cover up crime by scapegoating Dan Rather, it is as deluded as Karl Rove is. Why don't all the intellectually challenged journalists who are turning Dan Rather into the lone gunman and are crediting bloggers for closing the National Guard file, quote the blogger who wrote the following: "The Bushes love to ambush Dan Rather to divert attention away from their crimes. Bush sr. did it to cover up Iran Contra and Bush jr. did it to divert attention away from the fact that he was a National Guard deserter. Bush jr. hates to talk about the truth, but he loves to talk about documents, because, in his words, "I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out." So that's what we did. We took a close look at the documents and we discovered that his Texas
Air National Guard file show extreme signs of massive tampering. A close examination indicates that the altered parts disguise the fact that Bush did not receive an honorable discharge from the National Guard. The extensive tampering of Bush's discharge form covers up the embarrassing truth, and suffice it to say that if Bush received an honorable discharge for failing to show up, the need to tamper with his records would not exist. Of course, when Bush claims that the truth must come out, regarding his military documents, he means that we ought to rely upon right wing hysterics like Anne Coulter, who attack legitimate reporters like Dan Rather because they are duped by the fact that they receive the truth on documents that have been altered. Nice gimmick, but fool me once... In the final nalysis, the truth is clear and obvious isn't it? After all, why would no-show Bush receive an honorable discharge from the National Guard? What kind of an idiot do you have to be to think that Bush received an honorable discharge for refusing to fulfill his National Guard duties? Dan Rather was duped, but the truth is, if Bush received an honorable discharge, he should produce the documents to prove it --and if you believe Bush was honorably discharged, vote for the deserter. The most telling fact about the entire, CBS fiasco is the fact that the White House knew what Dan Rather was going to say a full day before he said it. Indeed, White House Communications Director, Dan Bartlett was granted the opportunity to see copies of the violently challenged memo, and he even showed it to the President. And the ultimate response was absolutely fascinating, wasn't it? Not a battery of lawyers that threatened to sue
the pants off Dan Rather, but a single, anti-Clinton attack dog, who is supposed to represent the blogger community. If that does not explain everything, nothing ever will. Having been given advance knowledge, it is not even remotely plausible to suggest that the White House was not prepared to pounce on Rather's story, as soon as it aired, on September 8, 2004. As a matter of fact, the entire Internet was following the story and preparing to respond, before the September 8 broadcast --and that is what you call insider trading, it is not blogger spontaneity. Indeed, on September 7, left-leaning blogs were anticipating the story with the spin, the documents would shed light on "Bush's guard service or lack thereof" while Free Republic bloggers claimed that "CBS should have to register as a Democratic campaign organization". Dan Rather got closest to the truth, when he said, "Those who have criticized our story have never criticized the heart of it... that George Bush received preferential treatment to get into the National Guard and, once accepted, failed to satisfy the requirements of his service." In context, the sleazy effort to cover up Bush's checkered past has been fact-checked by every intelligent blogger
I know, why doesn't the media expose the transparent hoax regarding the zeal to fraudulently distort George Bush's National Guard records? Just in case Howard Kurz, Bob Woodward and David Gergen missed the point, let me put it in the simplest,
possible terms.

Question: What happened? Answer: George Bush's National Guard records have been tampered with to cover up a
dishonorable discharge and Bush's smear machine had to divert attention away from the criminal tampering that has obscured the record, and towards a scapegoat like Dan Rather.

Question: Why did it happen? Answer: DUH !

Question: What might prevent it from happening again? Answer: Deservedly long prison sentences.

Facing questions about George Bush’s service raised in the NY Times and its own possible involvement with the disputed National Guard documents, the RNC canceled a hyped-up attack call with Ed Gillespie. After that, the Bush campaign canceled scheduled appearances by Dan Bartlett and Ed Gillespie on cable networks. These cancellations came as the Bush operatives refused to appear in a Q & A format alongside Kerry official Joe
Lockhart. Needless to say, Joe Lockhart has nothing to hide. The relative silence of Republican operatives is as clear as the failure to authentically document George Bush's National Guard duty. What is George Bush and his entourage, trying to hide? Well, the obsession to target and destroy anybody who explores the simple truth, is Rather clear, don't ya think?

P.S. We do not get much bandwidth in free websites, and if you wish, you or your organization are free to make a mirror site, to give bloggers the opportunity to regain the reputation that has been shredded by the national media.

9:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


12:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home