Reply #35: What are you talking about? [View All]

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

This thread was started to bash Dean on something that he never said.

Dean's quote:
"Questioned about the deaths of Saddam's sons, Odai and Qusai, in Iraq, Dean dismissed suggestions that it was a victory for the Bush administration. `It's a victory for the Iraqi people . . . but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war,' Dean said. `I think in general the ends do not justify the means.' "

What McCain suggested:
"soft on the death of Uday and Qusay. That was something McCain said,


Two completely different things.


Now, the reason I posted this bullshit Kerry story is to point out to kplongco that his candidate has denied things that are on the public record and therefore verifiable. Meanwhile, he's excoriating Dean for an obviously twisted interpretation of his quote. What's worse? Denying a falsehood/misinterpretation or denying the public record? I am subtly trying to suggest that perhaps one shouldn't engage in flamebait that is tenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. This notion that some candidates are more "pure" than others is hogwash. Every time someone posts a meaningless flame thread, I intend to point out to the poster that their candidate is just as "impure" as the candidate they are bashing. If you take the time to notice, you'll find that I never start threads that bash any of the candidates. I just try to "finish" them.



On edit- forgot to address this:

What is there about the deaths of the Hussein boys that has anything to do with the "evolving diagnosis" on important policy issues from six months ago..."?:shrug:





Second edit--Pez, here's another example of what I'm talking about: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=59028&mesg_id=59028

Notice a trend emerging here? I could list dozens of examples of this sort of crap that infests this discussion board, typically from a small handful of Kerry supporters.