Say Anything
Is there any doubt at this point that John Kerry's strategy is to make the most outlandish charges repeatedly, hoping that just enough voters will be fooled to win key states?
The scaremongering on the draft "issue" (one made up out of thin air by his campaign) reveals just how sleazy they are willing to go to win this.
Is there any chance this will backfire? Or will the trick work? Hard to tell right now.
The scaremongering on the draft "issue" (one made up out of thin air by his campaign) reveals just how sleazy they are willing to go to win this.
Is there any chance this will backfire? Or will the trick work? Hard to tell right now.
published by Brian Maloney at
16:15
4 Comments:
yes, it's comforting to known that bush and his campaign have yet to make an outlandish charge in the entire campaign. they sure stick to the truth! fight on, for might makes right, my conservative friend!
By
Anonymous, at 16 October, 2004 17:50
Feel free to include examples of where Bush has done this, especially on the order of a phony draft scare. "Everybody's doing it" got old during the Clinton years.
By
Brian Maloney, at 16 October, 2004 18:08
-cheney: another 9/11 if kerry is elected
-ashcroft: if al qaeda attacks before the election it's because they want kerry to win (granted he didn't say it explicitly, but it was clearly his implication in referring to the Madrid attacks during a press conference with FBI head last spring). truthfully, al qaeda probably doesn't care who the president is, they will try to attack us regardless. if they have a preference, it seems to be bush since his policies seem to be what they want-a perpetual war with the west and plenty of recruits for their side.
-bush et al.: kerry's vote against the $87 billion indicates he doesn't want to give the troops what they need. we both know kerry voted against this because he wanted [art of it to be loans (not grants) and wanted to pay for much of the rest by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy. he voted for this bill, which bush threatened to veto (does he care more about the tax cuts than the troops? no, but saying so is the same as their arguement against Kerry's vote). if we remember back, there was much debate about this bill and polls showed a slim majority of americans were against giving bush his request.
-bush: "the british gov't has learned..."; this was clearly phrased to be a "technically correct" statement they knew had little support in facts. this was used to take our country to war. blame it on the CIA, like you all like to do, you know as well as I that the CIA had previously expressed discontent with this intelligence and told them to keep it out of the Cincinatti speech. Dr. Rice conveniently "forgot". she sure deserves her job. see also aluminum tubes, connections with al qeada, connections with zarqawi, a passed up chance to take out zarqawi and his camp before the war, torture memos from alberto gonzales, "we know where the weapons are", saddam didn't let the insepctors in, the deufer report supports our rationale, etc. for other iraq related lies. these are quite serious and go far beyond kerry's statement that there is a "great potential" for a draft if bush continues his policy. if something were to happen that required military action on the scale of what we currently have in iraq while we are still in iraq, where would these troops come from?
a few other things that, while dishonest, are probably not on the level you were talking about but support my contention that the bush folks are being too jesus-like:
-bush et al: kerry raised taxes some 300 times (but now it's 100. you and i both know that this is a deceitful manipulation of the data
-bush et al.: kerry is the senate's most liberal. i'm sure you know this data was "cherry picked"-it is based on a single year while the multiyear data from the same analysis shows he's actually quite centrist (for better or worse).
i don't disagree that kerry is sometimes deceitful himself, but to act like his statement pales in comparison to anything the bush camp says or does is either blind or itself dishonest. politics is dirty on all sides and it's unfortunately civil only rarely. however, what bush has done (with mr. rove's direction) is the worst that i've seen in my life.
i will check in for your sure to be inane response, but since i will not change your horrible opinions about the way things should be and you will not change mine, i will not waste more time responding. best of luck with your blog. i'm sure there's many that agree with you that will become regular readers. i pray for your souls.
By
Anonymous, at 17 October, 2004 15:06
I wish that people would post using proper punctuation and capitalization, but I have no control over lazy people. The occasional typo should be forgiven, as well as occasional misspelling, but not ignorance. By the way, I disagree with you completely, even if I can spell better than your detractors.
By
Anonymous, at 20 December, 2004 04:35
Post a Comment
<< Home