Bunge....did you follow that link? I followed it, and found that it leads to ABC News' website. THEY are the ones positing this question, not Scott. He just wrote a clever thread title.
Get over it you guys, John Kerry is as much a politician as George W. Bush. Take your dings and move on. These guys aren't choirboys and when they make political wiggles you should just grit your teeth and admit it. Why try to justify it or be surprised when the competition takes advantage of the stumble? Don't give up your support for the guy if he's your candidate...but don't come off as disingenuous when he's busted on an issue. It isn't becoming, and in this case Kerry's actions might not be damning to the people who support him.
It's the undecided voters who might be affected by this story.
Kerry most definitely doesn't say that in what scott quoted. Show me where he says it or it's a lie* to say he did.
*or you were fooled by a politician.
Kerry absolutely DID say that. I've heard it. It's exact. If that was not his meaning, what was it? He was asked if he would vote against it if his amendment failed, and gave the response Scott quoted. I mean, come on. He voted against the money. That's all there is to it.
Kerry really is his own worst enemy. His doublespeak rivals if not exceeds Clinton's.
Quote:
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."
Bunge....did you follow that link? I followed it, and found that it leads to ABC News' website. THEY are the ones positing this question, not Scott. He just wrote a clever thread title.
Get over it you guys, John Kerry is as much a politician as George W. Bush. Take your dings and move on. These guys aren't choirboys and when they make political wiggles you should just grit your teeth and admit it. Why try to justify it or be surprised when the competition takes advantage of the stumble? Don't give up your support for the guy if he's your candidate...but don't come off as disingenuous when he's busted on an issue. It isn't becoming, and in this case Kerry's actions might not be damning to the people who support him.
It's the undecided voters who might be affected by this story.
....which really puts the focus on getting the facts straight. The press should do a better job of reporting. The statement said that "Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., SEEMED to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops." Scott took that and ran, misleadingly cutting out any ambiguity. Now, the fact that we've read something in a newspaper obviously does not make it true. In other words, both the article and Scott are completely wrong. What happened is clearly that John Kerry gave an evasive answer. If he's as fault for anything- it's giving an evasive answer or not answering the question. John Kerry should answer questions directly.
....which really puts the focus on getting the facts straight. The press should do a better job of reporting. The statement said that "Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., SEEMED to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops." Scott took that and ran, misleadingly cutting out any ambiguity. Now, the fact that we've read something in a newspaper obviously does not make it true. In other words, both the article and Scott are completely wrong. What happened is clearly that John Kerry gave an evasive answer. If he's as fault for anything- it's giving an evasive answer or not answering the question. John Kerry should answer questions directly.
So the new thread title should be "Kerry demonstrates doubletalk yet again."
Shawn, you and bunge can spin, spin away. The point is that Kerry characterized a set of actions and then took those actions. Plain, simple, and unambiguous.
Hey now, if we're all about reporting the facts then we should note that the mud-slinging started six months ago...it's just that the other team finally got down into the pit.
Hey now, if we're all about reporting the facts then we should note that the mud-slinging started six months ago...it's just that the other team finally got down into the pit.
Kerry absolutely DID say that. I've heard it. It's exact. If that was not his meaning, what was it?
You were fooled. Big deal. You shouldn't be TOO embarassed.
His quote is quite plain, he wouldn't abandon the troops. He doesn't say a single damn thing about the bill and doesn't even attempt to answer the question directly. I'm not spinning anything trumptman, you guys are just wrong.
The point is that Kerry characterized a set of actions and then took those actions.
Kerry clearly doesn't. By your definition Kerry would have to be reckless, irresponsible and abandon the troops. But Kerry definitively states that he's against those positions.
Kerry clearly doesn't. By your definition Kerry would have to be reckless, irresponsible and abandon the troops. But Kerry definitively states that he's against those positions.
Feel free to get your glasses prescription checked.
Quote:
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
"but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Characterized voting against the $87 billion as abandoning troops, reckless, irresponsible, not giving troops the means to defend themselves, and it would be "cutting and running."
He then voted against the $87 billion after his own amendment didn't garner support.
bunge, you have NOWHERE to go on this one. Kerry's statment was clear as day, and then he voted against it. You've got to be kidding. Why are you even arguing this? Actaully, WHAT are you arguing exactly?
bunge, you have NOWHERE to go on this one. Kerry's statment was clear as day, and then he voted against it. You've got to be kidding. Why are you even arguing this? Actaully, WHAT are you arguing exactly?
" The Kerry spokeswoman went on to say, "If the president and his Republican attack machine were serious about protecting our troops they wouldn't have invaded Iraq under false pretenses without our allies or without a plan to win the peace. And they wouldn't have sent the troops into battle without the equipment they needed in the first place."
You've got to know it's going to be a difficult thing to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq. It just won't be easy and will probably be a burden on the american tax payer ( no matter how you slice it ) for years.
Another gift from our fearless leader.
Kerry stated he wasn't going to abandon the troops or the situation in Iraq ( a really stupid notion that anyone would think he would ).
My feeling is that he propbably didn't like the way the money was being spent or who was spending it.
You guys really need to come up with better quality mud to sling.
If Kerry was serious about protecting our troops why did he vote for the war and then vote against funding the peace?
POW! Kerry caught in double talk again.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people voted for this war that wish they hadn't. Especially now that we know for sure there was no real reason to have it in the first place.
There were several different reasons to go to war. Bush haters like to forget all but one. In the end Iraq did not comply with 1441 and after the war was found to be in violation.
The world and the US are better off getting rid of Saddam and creating the middle east's second democracy. Voting to defund that effort was "reckless", "irresponsible" and "abandon"s troops.
There were several different reasons to go to war. Bush haters like to forget all but one. In the end Iraq did not comply with 1441 and after the war was found to be in violation.
The world and the US are better off getting rid of Saddam and creating the middle east's second democracy. Voting to defund that effort was "reckless", "irresponsible" and "abandon"s troops.
But Scott you seem to keep forgetting that wasn't the main reason we went to war and the one it's opponents protested.
For WOMD or not for WOMD. That is the question ( to paraphrase ).
The WOMD was the only reason this war got off the ground. Without it nothing would have happened because there would have been no support.
You said there was "no real reason" when there were several real reasons. Before the war no one knew what was going on in the country for sure. Now we have a better idea. You'll be shocked to find out that what we know in 2004 is not what we knew in 2002.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Kerry claimed he couldn't/wouldn't vote against the $87 billion because it would harm the troops and the progress in Iraq.
Kerry most definitely doesn't say that in what scott quoted. Show me where he says it or it's a lie* to say he did.
*or you were fooled by a politician.
Get over it you guys, John Kerry is as much a politician as George W. Bush. Take your dings and move on. These guys aren't choirboys and when they make political wiggles you should just grit your teeth and admit it. Why try to justify it or be surprised when the competition takes advantage of the stumble? Don't give up your support for the guy if he's your candidate...but don't come off as disingenuous when he's busted on an issue. It isn't becoming, and in this case Kerry's actions might not be damning to the people who support him.
It's the undecided voters who might be affected by this story.
Originally posted by bunge
Kerry most definitely doesn't say that in what scott quoted. Show me where he says it or it's a lie* to say he did.
*or you were fooled by a politician.
Kerry absolutely DID say that. I've heard it. It's exact. If that was not his meaning, what was it? He was asked if he would vote against it if his amendment failed, and gave the response Scott quoted. I mean, come on. He voted against the money. That's all there is to it.
Kerry really is his own worst enemy. His doublespeak rivals if not exceeds Clinton's.
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
Kerry argued that his amendment offered a way to do it properly, "but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."
WTF? Explain that.
Originally posted by drewprops
Bunge....did you follow that link? I followed it, and found that it leads to ABC News' website. THEY are the ones positing this question, not Scott. He just wrote a clever thread title.
Get over it you guys, John Kerry is as much a politician as George W. Bush. Take your dings and move on. These guys aren't choirboys and when they make political wiggles you should just grit your teeth and admit it. Why try to justify it or be surprised when the competition takes advantage of the stumble? Don't give up your support for the guy if he's your candidate...but don't come off as disingenuous when he's busted on an issue. It isn't becoming, and in this case Kerry's actions might not be damning to the people who support him.
It's the undecided voters who might be affected by this story.
....which really puts the focus on getting the facts straight. The press should do a better job of reporting. The statement said that "Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., SEEMED to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops." Scott took that and ran, misleadingly cutting out any ambiguity. Now, the fact that we've read something in a newspaper obviously does not make it true. In other words, both the article and Scott are completely wrong. What happened is clearly that John Kerry gave an evasive answer. If he's as fault for anything- it's giving an evasive answer or not answering the question. John Kerry should answer questions directly.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
....which really puts the focus on getting the facts straight. The press should do a better job of reporting. The statement said that "Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., SEEMED to argue that such a vote would be reckless, irresponsible, and tantamount to abandoning U.S. troops." Scott took that and ran, misleadingly cutting out any ambiguity. Now, the fact that we've read something in a newspaper obviously does not make it true. In other words, both the article and Scott are completely wrong. What happened is clearly that John Kerry gave an evasive answer. If he's as fault for anything- it's giving an evasive answer or not answering the question. John Kerry should answer questions directly.
So the new thread title should be "Kerry demonstrates doubletalk yet again."
Shawn, you and bunge can spin, spin away. The point is that Kerry characterized a set of actions and then took those actions. Plain, simple, and unambiguous.
Nick
What a surprise!
Oh well, in a few months the election will be over and Bush will be gone. We can then put this all behind us right guys?
Originally posted by drewprops
Hey now, if we're all about reporting the facts then we should note that the mud-slinging started six months ago...it's just that the other team finally got down into the pit.
I don't even know what that means.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Kerry absolutely DID say that. I've heard it. It's exact. If that was not his meaning, what was it?
You were fooled. Big deal. You shouldn't be TOO embarassed.
His quote is quite plain, he wouldn't abandon the troops. He doesn't say a single damn thing about the bill and doesn't even attempt to answer the question directly. I'm not spinning anything trumptman, you guys are just wrong.
Originally posted by trumptman
The point is that Kerry characterized a set of actions and then took those actions.
Kerry clearly doesn't. By your definition Kerry would have to be reckless, irresponsible and abandon the troops. But Kerry definitively states that he's against those positions.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I don't even know what that means.
Oh c'mon Shawn, don't be sad, you can figure it out...I have faith in you!
Originally posted by bunge
Kerry clearly doesn't. By your definition Kerry would have to be reckless, irresponsible and abandon the troops. But Kerry definitively states that he's against those positions.
Feel free to get your glasses prescription checked.
Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
"but I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Characterized voting against the $87 billion as abandoning troops, reckless, irresponsible, not giving troops the means to defend themselves, and it would be "cutting and running."
He then voted against the $87 billion after his own amendment didn't garner support.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
bunge, you have NOWHERE to go on this one. Kerry's statment was clear as day, and then he voted against it. You've got to be kidding. Why are you even arguing this? Actaully, WHAT are you arguing exactly?
Well.....
-----------------------------------------------------------
" The Kerry spokeswoman went on to say, "If the president and his Republican attack machine were serious about protecting our troops they wouldn't have invaded Iraq under false pretenses without our allies or without a plan to win the peace. And they wouldn't have sent the troops into battle without the equipment they needed in the first place."
-----------------------------------------------------------
You've got to know it's going to be a difficult thing to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq. It just won't be easy and will probably be a burden on the american tax payer ( no matter how you slice it ) for years.
Another gift from our fearless leader.
Kerry stated he wasn't going to abandon the troops or the situation in Iraq ( a really stupid notion that anyone would think he would ).
My feeling is that he propbably didn't like the way the money was being spent or who was spending it.
You guys really need to come up with better quality mud to sling.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
POW! Kerry caught in double talk again.
Originally posted by Scott
If Kerry was serious about protecting our troops why did he vote for the war and then vote against funding the peace?
POW! Kerry caught in double talk again.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of people voted for this war that wish they hadn't. Especially now that we know for sure there was no real reason to have it in the first place.
POW!
The world and the US are better off getting rid of Saddam and creating the middle east's second democracy. Voting to defund that effort was "reckless", "irresponsible" and "abandon"s troops.
Originally posted by Scott
There were several different reasons to go to war. Bush haters like to forget all but one. In the end Iraq did not comply with 1441 and after the war was found to be in violation.
The world and the US are better off getting rid of Saddam and creating the middle east's second democracy. Voting to defund that effort was "reckless", "irresponsible" and "abandon"s troops.
But Scott you seem to keep forgetting that wasn't the main reason we went to war and the one it's opponents protested.
For WOMD or not for WOMD. That is the question ( to paraphrase ).
The WOMD was the only reason this war got off the ground. Without it nothing would have happened because there would have been no support.
It's kind of a big point to try to gloss over.
Your argument is null and void.
I knew once you saw I was gone you'd jump in.