Having known WAY too many silver-tongued devils with the morals and integrity of a Skid Row crack-ho', I'm never that impressed with slick verbal facility. Both Kerry and Edwards have the gift of gab, honed by years of practice. Big deal!
When I was in high school, I had a pal who could talk anyone into anything, he was so persuasive and self-confident. It took me a couple of years, to figure out the guy was completely
full of bullsh##, and was 100% out for himself. I don't know whatever happened to him, as the last I saw of him was when he lit out for Texas during the '80's recession in Michigan. He could be in jail for some kind of pyramid-scam, or he might be the most successful used-car salesman in Lubbock. He didn't have the grades for college, I know that. I'm pretty sure now, he had an advanced case of A.D.D., which back in those days just meant you "refused to apply yourself."
For all of Kerry's slick expostulation, he's stuck with himself, and his far-left Senate voting record, not to mention his frequent, head-spinning position-shifts. It's beyond nuance, Dems! This guy changes his views, the way most of us change our socks. I won't even go into his shifty behavior in Vietnam, and shortly afterwards. Well, I will
, but not right now. He's focusing on Iraq, and now he calls it "The wrong war at the wrong time." HUH?! On August 9, he stated very decisively, that knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the war. Even more directly, on May 3, 2003, Kerry had said that "it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
He said during the debate, in perhaps the Biggest Lie of his career, "I have never wavered in my life." LOL! C'mon, John. Get real, for once in your life. Now, you're the "anti-war candidate," but we all know, if our army continues to clean out rebel-strongholds like they just did in Samarra, you'll be back on the "Good War Bandwagon," tamarra. Character and credibility? As Bush said, Kerry "has come down firmly on every side of the Iraq War." Bush made a funny remark yesterday, about how listening to Kerry could make anyone pull a funny face now and then, referring to one of the criticisms levelled at his debate-performance. I don't see how anyone could stifle a grimace or two, listening to this snake-oil salesman rave.
Edwards is just parroting the company line, in a litigator-like way. The same lies and half-truths that Kerry's campaign has made the shaky foundation of their campaign, Edwards is pushing like day-old doughnuts.
Bush and Cheney, and the GOP campaign, are not innocent in regards to twisting a few facts here and there. That's politics. But, in my mind, there is no comparison between the principled, resolute stance this administration has taken in the War on Terror, particularly the courageous way in which Bush has taken on and defeated Hussein, staking his whole presidency on the establishment of the first democracy in the Arab world, a prospect that strikes real terror in the heart of terrorists in the region. Bush was riding sky-high in the polls after Afghanistan, and could have coasted on that all the way into his second-term, while the UN continued to milk "Oil-For-Terror" and the "Allies" continued to gorge at the trough of Hussein's illegal oil-sales.
There's a web-site called factcheck.org, that is ruthless in pursuing the truth(as much as "the truth" can be known, based on knowledge made available...much of what goes on during war-time cannot be made public, for obvious reasons). If anything, they are largely pro-Dem, judging by their focus and the credentials of their lead investigator. Edwards pulled out the tired, discredited Halliburton crap the other day. Look at how factcheck.org trashes this canard:
Turns out, it's perfectly legal to lie in political ads, even though it's clearly illegal for most companies to run false advertising for their products/services. Why?
Free speech, baby!
Another tall tale:
Nothing To Do With the Truth
John Kerry continues to insist that Saddam Hussein had "nothing to do with al Qaeda." And he continues to be wrong.
by Daniel McKivergan
09/22/2004 12:00:00 AM
YESTERDAY, John Kerry repeated what has become a standard Kerry-Edwards campaign talking point: Saddam's Iraq had "no ties to al Qaeda," or, as Kerry recently told Time, Saddam Hussein had "nothing to do with al Qaeda."
These statements are false.
Numerous reports, ranging from those of the September 11 Commission to the Senate Intelligence Committee, have detailed a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. In July, the co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, Governor Thomas Kean, stated "there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."
Or consider this, from the memoir of the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, General Tommy Franks, American Soldier:
"One known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan--where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons--was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq. Badly wounded fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan, Zarqawi had received medical treatment in Baghdad before setting up with Ansar al Islam. And evidence suggested that he had been joined there by other al Qaeda leaders, who had been ushered through Baghdad and given safe passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces. . . . [p. 332] And while many al Qaeda leaders had been killed [in Afghanistan], others had sought sanctuary in Iraq. [p. 403]"
People can disagree over the necessity of gong to war to remove Saddam. But they should not deny facts in order to make
it easier to sell their particular policy position.
Daniel McKivergan is deputy director of The Project for the New American Century.