Tunnel Vision
This week we are seeing two more examples of political perception versus reality in comments in the blogosphere about John Kerry. We are seeing an excellent example of tunnel vision in the use of the Boston Herald’s recent story which takes Kerry’s views on Iraq out of context. It is interesting that the usual Kerry bashers are well aware of a single story in a newspaper long known for its biased reporting, but appear totally unaware of Kerry’s actual statements on the war. They appear totally unaware of the warnings against going to war in Kerry’s Senate floor speech, Georgetown speech, and other public statements. They have also forgotten Kerry’s call for regime change in Washington after Bush ignored Kerry’s advice and went to war.
Inside the Bubble is also an interesting litmus test. We know that if a movie unfavorable to Bush, or even to a previous losing candidate such as Bob Dole was coming out, the Republcans noise machine would be defending the Republican and attacking the film’s producers. Will liberal bloggers debunk the criticism of Kerry, or will the usual Kerry bashers see this as another chance to pile on? The tendency of many Democratic writers to spread such criticism of other Democrats is one reason the Republicans have been so successful.
posted by Ron Chusid at 10:07 AM
5 Comments:
"Tunnel Vision"
I am confused. "Out of Context?"
What exactly are John Kerry's views on Iraq? I am no insider. I read that he said he would have voted to support invasion even if he had known there were no WMDs. I read that he said very recently that "progress" is being made. I read that he told Cindy Sheehan something about bringing "freedom" to the people of Iraq. We know there is no freedom and the people continue to suffer. Speaking the truth is not unpatriotic. Does he just not want to lose invitations to cocktail parties and fancy dinners? I wanted to believe in him and support him. I am disheartened and bewildered. Please respond; I am sincere.
None of that is accurate about Kerry.
Kerry's position on Iraq was that the President (any President) should have the authority to go to war if we are endangered by WMD and diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation are not successful.
At the same time, Kerry stated that we should not go to war unilaterally, should not go to war for nation building, and should not go to war unless it was proven we were threatened by WMD. He repeatedly stated prior to the war that there was no evidence we were threatened by WMD and opposed going to war under the actual conditions existing. Kerry also warned about the dangers of the US invading or occupying an Arab country.
Kerry never daid he would have voted to support invasion if he had known there was no WMD--that was a distortion of what Kerry said. All he said was that he continued to believe that, in principle, a President should have the authority to go to war if we are theatened. He has also stated that Bush has misused the authority granted him and that we should not have gone to war.
The statements regarding progress and bringing freedom to Iraq are also misquotes. He conceded that some good has come out of the war, such as the removal of Saddam, but that does not change the fact that the ovarall policy was a mistake, and that we need to get out of there.
I left out the response regarding Cindy Sheehan. That's also a distortion of what Kerry said. When he talked about bringing freedom to the people of Iraq, he was talking about how we were not bringing freedom to them, and shouldn't be there.
Thanks for the two comments regarding John Kerry's stance on Iraq, and the "Tear My Hair Out" posting today. I must say that what I read from A. Huffington is what finally put me in a tizzy, although that is not the only source of "misinformation" that has been nagging at me on the subject.
Realize it's useless to dwell in the past, but still rue the decision to concede the election.
I am back in the fold, so to speak, and apologize. Thanks again.
There was really no choice but to concede. Kerry waited until he could analyze the numbers of votes left uncounted, and it was clear he could not win. The final count showed he was right. In the unlikely event that the count changed and he did win (or if evidence of fraud could be uncovered) his concession would have no legal meaning.
Post a Comment
<< Home