The implication of Kerry’s comments is that he is equating Bush with Hussein.
I supose he has the right to make such an asinine association if he wants to. Equally, people who disagree have the right to denounce him for it.
He can hardly argue on the one hand that he has the right to say such things but other people don’t have the right to hold him to task for it in whatever they wish.
Never been impressed with Kerry. Nor is it very intelligent to vote for someone just because he doesn’t like the guy you don’t like.
To wit: Any asshole can tear something/one down. What does he actually stand for? I’ve always been more impressed with Gore there anyway. And that is where I see him (Kerry) lacking. However, 2004 is still next year, so we’ll see…
—My god, I split an infinitive.—
There’s nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive: and don’t let syntax nutjobs tell you different. In English, splitting an infinitive can resolve potential ambiguities in a sentance, which is always more important than trying to soothe some asshole’s ego over how utterly useless his long study of Latin was.
Piffle. No such thing. You must first stuff that implication into his remarks in order to draw it back out.
**
Indeed, which is especially tasty if the denouncer is Tom DeLay, currently titleholder for Most Reptilian Republican, after the late, grating Newt Gangrene. Every time he takes the limelight, my heart soars like an eagle.
**
And he has the right to grind thier rebuke into verbal hamburger and stuff it down thier throat. Which, he has done. Handily, in my estimation. And, unless I miss my guess, was quite the point of the excercise.
http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/05/kerry_speech/index.html
Here is the full-text of the Kerry speech. Powerful stuff. I wonder how he and Wesley Clark get along. It would be fascinating to watch Kerry-Clark against the Chickenhawk Ticket in 2004.
Don’t forget the Mexican war where we got us some more territory! And the creation of Panama should count too!
Anybody ever notice that the post count seems to go up around the time the bars close?
Indeed. I think Clark is setting himself up quite nicely as a probable VP for whoever gets the nomination. All the CNN exposure as a war analyst will certainly help too.
Well done, Mr. Kerry.
Hats off to Kerry for saying our emperor is naked. A big boo hiss to MSNBC, who introduced the story by calling it a bigger blunder than “I am not a crook” and “I did not have sex with that woman”. MSNBC has become a cheerleader for the administration and putting their own editorial spin on the news is unprofessional.
ISTM that John Kerry’s comment was effective. It got him considerable publicity. Judging from this thread, his comment is popular among the Democratic base. These are the people who are most apt to vote in primaries.
If KLerry wins the nomination, he will have to find a way to backtrack, since 70% of the nation supported the war before it started and because it has gone well. But, there’s always time to change his focus. Anyhow, Iraq won’t be an issue by then.
So, I think Kerry did a smart thing.
MSNBC: “This just in! President Bush is the new Churchill, and Geraldo Rivera reveals troop movements to Saddam!”
Fox: “No! Our Leader is Lincoln reborn, and Peter Arnett passes nuclear secrets to Osama!”
MSNBC: “Bush bestrides the world like a collossus, behold his wonder and his glory! Geraldo sacrifices babies to the Dark Lord, and collects Carrot Top tapes!”
Fox: “God! He’s God, I tell you and…”
That’s how we change administrations. Our regime is a democratic republic.
Yes, but regime has two meanings:[list=a][]A form of government: a fascist regime. []A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime. [/list]
Yes, but people have a way of changing their minds once the nation is out of the heat of battle. Hind sight, if you will.
“In other words, he’s shredded international law, Constitutional law, and the long tradition of the U.S. respecting international borders unless directly provoked, a tradition which has allowed us to speak with special moral authority up until the day … , etc., etc.”
" We need to put this behind us and get to work doing the job the American people elected us to do. "
…
(And please, before the ‘not-elected’ swipe by those who hold the constitution in such high esteem, well except for a couple of unsightly amendments early on, refer to Article II.)
False. America has a long history of invading countries when it thinks its interests are being challenged. Other posters have already pointed out a few of those instances.
False. American citizens like Jose Padilla can petition for habeas corpus at any time. In fact, Jose Padilla’s attorneys have already filed a writ of habeas corpus:
Here is the government’s response to that writ.
You need to get your ears checked. “Enemy combatant” doesn’t sound similiar to “POW” to anyone else, including Human Rights Watch, which is unabashedly biased in favor of the detainees:
Anyway, the detainees in Gitmo are being held pursuant to the dictates of the Geneva Convention. If you have evidence otherwise, please feel free to mix a few cites into your silly rant.
There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose the Bush presidency without resorting to fiction.
Similarly, there are plenty of ways to state your opposition to Bush’s re-election without comparing him to Saddam Hussein. I’d have preferred that Kerry stuck to his promise to muffle his criticism of Bush during the conflict in Iraq. (I guess Kerry’s promises come with an expiration date of about three weeks.) As for his supposed political backbone, we’re talking about a guy that criticized Bush’s “rush to war,” then voted in favor of the war in Iraq, and the next week continued his criticism of the Bush administration’s “rush to war.”
I much prefer Edwards and HRC, who have stood by their votes in favor of the war.
He has a trap door for that vote in favor of the “war resolution”: he was lied to. The papers Fearless Misleader used to brief the Senators about the dangers of Saddams nuclear program were childish forgeries that shouldn’t have passed muster with Inspector Clouseau, much less a responsible Commander in Chief.
If they were such obvious forgeries, why didn’t Kerry (and the other Senators) sniff them out?
I am always pleased when I can answer a difficult question immediatly and without hesitation: I don’t know. IIRC, the forgery wasn’t exposed until the US handed the papers to the UN atomic inspectors who took one look and fell into fits of contemptuous laughter, pointing thier fingers and saying * Zoot suit alors! C’est le merde!!"*
Gosh, I hope it wasn’t because he trusted GeeDubya and/or the CIA! I sure wouldn’t want to vote for somebody that stupid!