I stumbled across this in the Time Vault. Who said it?
KERRY'S OBVIOUS FLAW: For all the Times' puffery, isn't it a critical problem for John Kerry that he voted against the first war with Iraq? If he couldn't stand up to Saddam and the enemy after a brutal invasion of another country, why should we trust him to defend our security today? I'd say that's a fatal weakness.
As I said, answer coming soon.
Um, Tom, isn't the answer obvious? Everything that Andrew Sullivan said about the war prior to Bush's announcement in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is now invalid. Sheesh... no fair bring up that now!
Posted by: Al | October 06, 2004 at 11:02 AM
Another nice quote there about the uncertainties regarding Saddam's WMDs...
~~
"IS SADDAM MANUFACTURING EBOLA VIRUS? This important and detailed report from the Washington Post makes for unnerving reading.
"Yes, as the story details, we don't know for certain whether the reports of defectors are completely true and our satellites cannot determine with complete accuracy whether new buildings and construction are designed to build weapons of mass destruction.
"So the question becomes: who gets the benefit of the doubt? A dictator who has used such weapons and declared the United States as an enemy or a democratic country that has already experienced terrorist catastrophe?"
Posted by: Jim Glass | October 06, 2004 at 11:23 AM
The vote against invading Iraq in 1991 was definitive in defining Kerry's true views on using American military power. What I think is most important in this regard - France and Germany were on board. The EU was on board. All Saddam's neighbors except Jordan were on board. More importantly, the UN was on board via their resolution authorizing force.
Wasn't this indeed a "global test", which the US passed overwhelming? How high is the bar for passing Kerry's global test?
Posted by: MaDr | October 06, 2004 at 12:01 PM
Saletan on the VP debate: Runners Advance. Enjoy.
Posted by: abb1 | October 06, 2004 at 12:36 PM
Saletan. What a card.
As much as we've seen plans from either side, I'm giving that one an F for both veracity and relevance.
Great. Saletan thinks it's just keen that Edwards is catering to the Michael Moore crowd. During a VP debate, no less.
The remainder of that quote, "after the cold war", is curiously ignored by all parties. Hey, maybe some weapons systems no longer made sense when our old adversary was down. Regardless, you can't compare weapons systems cuts with rejection of initial funding for vital systems currently in use.
And this is supposed to reflect poorly on Cheney, given that it's inaccurate?
Coming from a trial lawyer, though...but Saletan already knew that.
Which is utter horseshit. If he'd said so at the time, perhaps it might carry some weight.
No, this was Cheney impugned Edwards' attendance record. Who'd Saletan pay to watch the debates for him, anyway?
Now we have Saletan cheering Edwards for saying something that has no basis in fact.
So, Edwards didn't remember their meeting, either. Must have been worth remembering, if it took his staff two hours to Google it up.
What a load. To be fair, though, it's a pretty typical Saletan load.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 01:00 PM
Well, thanks. Nothing can make me happier than wingnuts turning against moderate Republicans.
Posted by: abb1 | October 06, 2004 at 01:33 PM
Oops. Exact quote:
Which simply establishes that Kerry's been voting against weapons systems for a very long time.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 01:36 PM
So, I'm a wingnut for thinking Saletan's a jackass? What am I for thinking Rush Limbaugh is a jackass?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 01:37 PM
A confused wingnut? Not to worry, you're in good company. Or at least my company...
The strange thing is, Saletan isn't always this big of a tool. Me, I think that Fred Kaplan's been a bad influence on him and Suellentrop.
Posted by: Mitch H. | October 06, 2004 at 01:56 PM
You know, once upon a time Slate published a list of its editorial staff and how they voted. Now that list is no longer available, but on that list Saletan claimed to have voted for Gore in 2000.
All righty then. Moderate Republican he may be, but if so he hardly typifies Republican moderates.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 02:06 PM
Alright, all right. Don't get upset. You're doing fine. That was a joke.
Posted by: abb1 | October 06, 2004 at 02:21 PM
To this indictment, Edwards added two others. In Afghanistan, he blamed Bush for letting Osama Bin Laden escape Tora Bora to strike again.
Now we have Saletan cheering Edwards for saying something that has no basis in fact.
If it has no basis in fact, you'd think either Bush or Cheney would have been able to point that out at some point. Hell, the fact that Cheney had no response to that extremely damaging allegation is the only thing that makes me question awarding him the win last night.
Posted by: sym | October 06, 2004 at 03:51 PM
Agreed. However, the fact that neither Bush nor Cheney pointed it out doesn't mean that it was true. And, so far, I've seen exactly zero evidence to support the claim.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 04:13 PM
"And, so far, I've seen exactly zero evidence to support the claim."
Every week that goes by without a credible Osama sighting tends to support the theory he's a grease spot at Tora Bora. I thought that conclusion optimistic at the time, but it's hard to see why he wouldn't release a video, if he could.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 06, 2004 at 04:41 PM
Prediction: If Kerry actually wins this election, Sullivan's gonna have the Mother of All Buyers' Remorse. Kerry just doesn't stand for anything Sullivan believes in (leaving aside whether Kerry even stands for anything Kerry believes in), and he's unlikely to be anything but a follower on Sullivan's signature issue, same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Crank | October 06, 2004 at 04:41 PM
I'd leave it right there.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | October 06, 2004 at 04:52 PM
Abb1,
You are a delightful fraud, kind of like your idol Bill Clinton.
Everything you say is a deliberate lie, but some of the facts are true -- and so many fools can't tell the difference.
It's that fascinating technique of "objective dishonesty" brought to perfection by lefty MSM hacks -- and then taken to new levels of... ah... "ripeness" by such "luminaries" as Jayson Blair and Dan Rather.
Your skill is admirable -- as a pure ficton writer.
Now, if your friends or your spouse or even your mother ever actually TRUST you in any way -- well, they deserve all they get.
Posted by: Tom Paine | October 07, 2004 at 11:50 AM
"If it has no basis in fact, you'd think either Bush or Cheney would have been able to point that out at some point." -- sym
That's part of the problem with the debate format, there isn't time to both address the opponent's main point and individually refute a series of lies that they tossed out as support for that point.
Then even after the debate, the media would rather twitter over simple mistakes (like Kerry saying Treblinka when he meant Lubyankaya), than address a blatant lie like Kerry's, "The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry." Especially when it's a lie they helped create and spread in the first place.
The same goes with the Kerry-Edwards Iraq was a diversion from al-Qaeda line of argument.
Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett | October 07, 2004 at 03:55 PM
Oh, I know. It's too bad Bush has such a hard time simplifying complex messages.
Posted by: sym | October 08, 2004 at 05:32 AM