Is This a good debunking job?

[noahmijo]

The President of the Young Republicans in Texas challenged my girlfriend and I to refute her.

So I did.

Here it is.

My statements in bold

Kerry even said, "I think it was a right
> decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. (trying to show that Kerry "supported the war")

That doesn’t automatically mean he felt that war was the way to do it. What was he supposed to say?? No Saddam is a nice man who should have all the weapons he can get his hands on. If in fact he did have WMD’s (Which no proof has surfaced yet that he does in fact have them) Weapons Inspectors could’ve done the job without resorting to war.


but shortly
> after noticing anti-war candidate Dean's rise in the polls, this
> flip-flopper suddenly turned against the war too. "Are you one of those
> anti-war candidates?" I specifcially remember the Chris Matthews
> interview on Hardball and Kerry's response, "Yes, I am." Then, once he
> routed Howard, he suddenly flipflopped back into prowar status.

Okay this is a classic Republican distortion of this interview.

The actual transcript of what was said was this

“ MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought ... Are you one of the anti-war candidates?"

KERRY. "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.”

Notice how Matthews asks TWO questions and morphs them into one? As you can see Kerry was saying “Yes” to his disapproval of how Bush has run this war. This is NOT a flip-flop, but a clear attempt by the Republicans to paint him as one.

I'm also amazed as to how the RNC LITERALLY cut the segment in their version of it before Kerry even finishes the complete word of "Yes"

This is highly dishonest and even Matthews has asked that this be clarified, and I'm sure anyday now, the good honest moral Republicans will apologize for misleading the public right?.......

Either you are lying and you didn’t really see this broadcast or you are lying and falsely interpreting Kerry’s statement to this question.



Which is it?


His newest and best line I think is
> that Iraq is "wrong time, wrong place, wrong war" and that he would and
> will do "everything differently" from President Bush. In saying this, I
> am presuming  that "everything differently" means voting AGAINST the
> war that only three weeks ago he repeated he would have again voted
> for.

Do you really believe this or are you simply doing your job as a Republican parrot to spread this nonsense?

Okay let’s take a look at Kerry’s original vote and his floor statement to his statements concerning he would still support the authorization.





http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

Now where in this statement does Kerry say ANYTHING near the idea of invading just for the sake of invading or putting war first? Kerry made clear that in voting for this authority
He expected Bush NOT to lie and to actually obey the authority’s terms WHICH HE DID NOT.

If you had bothered to actually read the IWR you’d see that this authorization that Kerry supported is NOT a simple “Go to war” It contained MANY roadblocks before war would be justified WHICH BUSH IGNORED.

The IWR was also necessary to back inspectors. So you see if Kerry had answered “No” he would not vote for this bill, then the Republicans, being the lying thugs that they are, would’ve said “Kerry wouldn’t support the inspectors! how can you trust a man who now wouldn’t have even supported the weapons inspections when he said he did before! FLIP FLOP!”

“SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Read the whole thing for yourself.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Kerry’s position on the war has never changed. Bush promised to build a true coalition he did not, he promised only to use force if it was absolutely necessary, he used force because he felt like it. There was no imminent threat and the IWR clearly states that force is ONLY authorized if a clear and present danger is found.

Bush is trying to make the public ignore the bumbling of this war, the fact that his administration has consistently lied about the reasons for this war (Do you remember? First it was the threat of nuclear and biological weapons being used on us, now we’re there to free the Iraqis)

Because Bush has no morals or values and refuses to face responsibility for his actions, his only defense is to use Rove to paint Kerry as something he is not, and turn attention away from his own dismal record, and the fact that he went into this war with no plan or exit strategy.

Bush’s solution? Continue to parrot the lie that Al-Queda and Saddam are linked and that things are going very well in Iraq.

Well if you believe the situation in Iraq is going well, I invite you to take a trip there someday, but don’t forget your burka since now Iraq is to be ruled under an Islamic Republic ~~~~>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21321-2004Jan15¬Found=true


President Bush has told Americans FROM THE BEGINNING,
> VERY CLEARLY how he stands on Iraq, and the war on terror

So did we go to war because they were going to nuke us or because it was our job and the duty of the 1,000 soldiers+ who have died now to be free Iraq?
I can’t keep up with Bush’s flip flops on Iraq help me out here.

. And Mr.
> Kerry, argues...what, exactly? Can anyone be sure? Don't place any bets
> on what his position is on national security.

Have you studied Iran-Contra? The BCCI? Since you know so much about Kerry’s national security policy vs this administration’s stances
Tell me what side was Kerry on during these events and which side was Dick Cheney on?

Just last Thursday, the New York Times implored him to
> take a CLEAR POSITION ON THE WAR.

Link please or at least a quote.


I wish him all the best of luck with that battle,
> seeing as how everything that he has done and said since February
> should only reinforce him in the minds of us all as a flipflopper

Well that’s the way the Republicans have been attempting to play all this time since they have nothing substantial to run on. Too bad every flip flop charge has been already debunked. Go ahead try another one.
Afterwards, maybe we can explore Bush’s TRUE flip flops a little bit?

Trade, as I mentioned above, is also worth discussing in regards to Kerry's position, but I am on my way to Migrations and Diasporas class and I don't have time to comment on it, but I will say that his trade policies are maddening, as the Wall Street Journal Europe today's issue states, "John Kerry's trade issues are enough to make an economist weep."

Which section exactly was that found in (I am very familiar with the WSJ and want to know if you found that in the Editorials or Opinion section)
and how do YOU interpret Kerry’s trade policies?

Oh and don’t forget you better have more smears ready, considering the fact that this administration has the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover (The Depression President) but somehow of course that’s Kerry’s fault too I suppose, that under Bush’s economic policies not ONE new net job has been created.

From the BLS


http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/{E9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03}/eca.gif


I will enjoy seeing you defend this issue. I
> send loads of respect and admiration from across the ocean to the Young
> Democrats of The University of Arizona, continue your tailgate parties
> and rallies, it is clear from his own contradictory statements that
> your candidate needs all the help he can get.


Actually the truth is we have the facts on our side. We rely on FACTS to get our points across, while the Republicans are relying on shameful smears and exploitation of 9-11 and
Our fears of terrorism. Proof of this would be from Dick Cheney’s own recent statements


"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

~Dick Cheney 09/08/04

Mr. Cheney during Iran-Contra where the government was selling arms to Iranian terrorists whose side were you on and whose side was Mr. Kerry on? Just wondering.
Also Mr. Cheney are you in fact threatening the American people that if they vote for Kerry and he wins, somehow you know for a fact that we’ll be toast? Doesn’t this statement somehow violate the Patriot Act? I think Ashcroft should investigate Dick Cheney.


It is clear from the lies and massive mistakes this administration has made that they do in fact need all the help they can get given the fact that lies and fallacious smears are they have left to run on.


> GOOOOOOOOO BUSH!

Yes please go back to Connecticut.

[livinginphotographs]

1. Rick James would be proud. (slap!)

Please post her response when (or if) she sends one. ;)

[noahmijo]

4. ahhh a great schtick relived! it would've been if I could've

included a picture of Chappelle as Rick James and make it look like he's saying all this and not me.

Charlie Murphy! hahahahaha, what did da four fingers say to the face?

[nyhuskyfan]

2. Nicely done

I would also add that Bush has in no way been clear about his stance on Iraq. Just the opposite. Why are we there? Is it because he has nuclear weapons or other WMD? Was it because of his ties to Al Qaeda? Is it because Iraq poses a threat to us? Or are we merely liberators to free the Iraqi people? And if that's all it was, why are we still there - and why aren't we in the Sudan.

Notice also, how they talked about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the war -- now, they talk about his weapons of mass destruction program-related activities.

They can't make up their minds on what we were doing there.

[comsymp]

3. Re: Kerry "yes I am" anti-war comment- I'd also point out

that Matthews raked BC04 over the coals and requested them to remove that selectively edited piece from their web commerical, as it was a blatant distortion of what was actually said. Dunno if it's still on the Hardball site or not....

[noahmijo]

5. noted thank you I will use that.

[EndElectoral]

6. Excellent Post....now if we could just get the media to report it!!!

[Czolgosz]

7. nice!

[rfranklin]

8. You did great. but...

since there is no judge, your opponent cannot be cited for failure to present a compelling case, or any case.