Geez, Daniel, read the freaking quote.
The context is there. He says, clearly and specifically, the Iraqi invasion. That is the “invasion” he is talking about.
How the hell can you claim that this is either ambiguous, or taken out of context?
I was kidding around when I said I wasn’t better, but I am not kidding now. You are smarter than that.
Regards,
Shodan
D’oh! Absolutely my fault. I apologize; I read the quotes yesterday and didn’t read them again this morning, and had forgotten the specific wording.
I maintain that, absent the entire text of both letters, it’s impossible to maintain a charge of dishonesty against Kerry.
Daniel
Shoddy, you just don’t seem to have this “cite” thing down.
Oh, your links clickety-click ok, but they lead…well, straight to Bogusville.
Take your first. Straight to a rightarded web site. Full of what may very well be quotes, they have the quote marks and everything but…alas!.. they lack that crucuial element, the attribution. Note: Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post…such as these are “cites”. Rush Limbaugh wannabes don’t get it. By thier links ye shall know them: NewsMax, Heritage Foundation, Republican National Committee.
If you claim to be making a “cite”, the common tenets of civil and rational discourse require some passing semblence of objectivity.
“…voting against the resolution to use force…” and “…lied about it…”
Your second and third are truly representative of your style. You offer a statement that is nowhere backed up in the link you offer. Its rather an insightful capsule rendition of John Kerry, seeing as how its USA Today, and all, but the statement you report does not appear there. Ooopsy!
And, of course, the cite that allegedly supports your accusation of"lying" is our old tried and true buddy, National Revue Online. In fact, its the precise same cite that I pointed to earlier! The very same. The same NRO that published the article claiming that Kerry was under the control of the KGB in his war protesting years.
So out of three swings, three strikes…two entirely biased sources and a third that doesn’t even say what you say it does. Deceitful, underhanded, and intellectually dishonest: in a word, shoddy.
Fair enough. And, FWIW, I have been Googling to try to find the complete text, but either the quoted portions are the complete text, or the complete text has never been published.
Regards,
Shodan
Obviously they’re not the complete text --they lack salutation or signature line, among other things.
There are two reasons why the complete text might not be included. Either the author of that article is sloppy, not realizing that his claim would be stronger if he included the full text, or else he deceitful, realizing that his claim would be a lot weaker if he included the full text.
Neither one makes me inclined to give the article as written much credence. Given the silliness of other attacks against Kerry recently, there’s a whole “boy who cried wolf” vibe going on; if you want me to believe any attack against Kerry at this point, you’re gonna have to have some pretty solid evidence.
Daniel
Or that the rest of the test is irrelevent. In any event, the Kerry spin is not along the lines of your speculation here. The Kerry story is that it was a computer glitch, and that the “supported” letter was an old letter that predated the Bush military response. Cite 1 Cite 2
Aha – now THERE are some real cites! Thanks, Izzy. Context is everything. From your second cite:
The final sentence of this paragraph is hilarious. Does the author think most politicians send the same letter to all constituents regardless of the constituent’s POV? Or does the author think that politicians are honorbound never to change their position on an issue, regardless of what new data might come in?
So Kerry didn’t lie; instead, his staff screwed up and sent out the wrong letter to a constituent. Once we see the context in which this error occurred, we see that Shodan was at best sadly misinformed when he accused Kerry of lying.
Note my charity toward your motives, Shodan, a charity you didn’t show Kerry.
Daniel
Well you are assuming that Kerry’s story is true. Would you make the same assumption if it was Bush aides in similar cicumstances?
Hell, no. I’d ask, in January 1991, to see a copy of the letter they sent out to war supporters in January 1991.
If they could produce this letter (and, ideally, someone who had received it), then I would believe them. If they couldn’t, then I wouldn’t.
But if I didn’t ask for it, then that’d be my own damn fault, and I wouldn’t expect that I could make a case against my political opponent based on my own shoddy research practices.
Note that even your cite admits that Kerry’s story may well be true.
Daniel
I myself also think it could be true. It could also be false. You should allow for that possibility.
The problem for Kerry, whether this particular explanation is true or false, is that once you get a reputation in the media of any characteristic there will inevitably be many instances that can be interpreted along those lines. So there’s no real way to dig out from under it. Thus Dan Quayle and GW are morons, Al Gore is a liar etc. etc.
And the best way for decent people to combat this problem is not to spread ill-supported rumors and not to encourage character assassination stories.
Daniel
I wish that were true: I wish these ideas, at the very least, where even in the public debate. I dont’ think there’s much truth to it. People are very much happy when you talk about lowering their taxes. But because they aren’t happy about lowering spending, the latter is meaningless.
For instance, there is nothing I’d love more than to see this party platform enacted: “Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs.”
But the reality is, in today’s America that’s an extremist position, any way you slice it.
I dunno, am I looking at the wrong party?
http://www.lp.org/issues/
Isn’t this a platform with many issues that most Americans would consider extremely radical, even unthinkable, no matter how appealing you might think they are?
Indeed: but the structural issue is a strong component as well. I personally believe that we have to get those rules changed before we can really have stable 3+ multiparty functionality.
What you and I might think is bizarre is irrelevant.
Indeed it is. But I doubt the idea that the letter “predated the military response” is going to hold much water, since the quote says:
It would be interesting to hear Kerry’s spin on what policy goals were established other than the use of military force by a miitary deployment.
And, of course, my point remains that only a foreign policy mentally challenged person could believe, or ask us to believe, that sanctions would work without an invasion.
The other implausibility is that both letters were sent to the same person. The one Kerry alleges he meant to send out never got there.
I find this part interesting. Are you saying that the mistake lay in Kerry sending out both letters to the same person, and that what he intended was to send only one or the other?
In other words, the problem was not that he was fibbing about his vote, but that he told the wrong fib?
One letter makes him a liar. Another makes him an idiot. The third, representing what he wants us to believe is his position now, only comes to light way after the fact.
But if it were Bush, you would insist
See the double standard? Bush Sr. would have to prove his case right on the spot, and contemporaneously. Kerry gets thirteen years grace period, and even then you defend him.
How come the gander doesn’t get any of that sauce?
Regards,
Shodan
Well you are going to have your work cut for you in a lot of Bush threads. Best of luck. 
Libertarian & Apos,
I think you guys have it backwards. It is true that there are strucutral issues preventing a third party (and thankfully so, IMHO). But if these Libetarian ideas were to get any traction they would do so in one of the two major parties. The reason they haven’t done so is not because the politicians from those parties have suppressed them. Rather it is because they represent a radical departure from the way society is presently structured.
Uh…you are aware that five days after Hussein invaded Kuwait, US troops were deployed to the region, yes?
Whatever. That’s just namecalling, and that’s why I haven’t addressed it. Your point about Kerry’s honesty at least is falsifiable and therefore worth discussing.
Oh, bullshit. It didn’t get there because a staffer sent the wrong letter instead. This ain’t rocket science.
Bullshit redux. The mistake is that he sent the wrong “pro-war-constituent” letter out. Fibs don’t enter into it; normal political spin does.
Look: if I were a pro-environmental senator, I might vote against oil drilling off Alaska’s shoreline. A constituent who wrote me in oppoisition to such drilling would get a letter agreeing with her and touting my long environmental record. A constituent who wrote me in support of such drilling would isntead get a letter explaining why I opposed it and discussing alternate ways to boost Alaska’s economy. There’s no fibbing there. And that’s essentially what Kerry tried to do in this case, except a staffer sent out the wrong letter.
Going for the bullshit threefer, are we?
The whole point in my quote about asking Bush for proof in 1991 is that it would be easier to produce proof in 1991. I wouldn’t ask him for proof in 2004 because by then, he may no longer have the proof I was asking for. If Bush, in similar circumstances, could produce the proof thirteen years later, he’d of course be welcome to do so; my point was that it wouldn’t be fair to expect him to have copies of all letters he sent to constituents more than a decade ago.
Daniel
Thanks, but you don’t need to wish me luck; it’s hardly any work at all to not spread dubious rumors.
Daniel
A few more beauties from the Waffling Wonder -
Some petty stuff -
Some others -
Kerry voted in favor of the Patriot Act.
So apparently Viet Nam is off the table for discussion.
Except -
Be prepared for plenty more in the months ahead.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll take your latest post as surrendering your previous ground, given that you didn’t address any of the three bullshit points I showed that you’d made previously.
Daniel
What, and deny Bush-Cheney their only campaign tactic? Heaven forbid they actually try to run on their record…
:rolleyes: I hate it when people don’t read my posts. Let’s look at this again:
(emphasis added)
So who’s talking about Bush and Cheney?
Daniel
snarky to the end