Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Kerry Doctrine, Deux | Main | Sure, Saddam May Have Been A Crook, But What About Dick Cheney? »

October 06, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8345764b169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Answer Coming Soon:

» Kerry and the Gulf War from fmonkey.net
I've heard this mentioned several times, but (and this isn't a surprise) I don't feel it's getting very much play in the press. On January 12, 1991 the Senate voted on "S Joint Res 2: Use of Force against Iraq".... [Read More]

Comments

Al

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!

Jim Glass

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?"


MaDr

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?

abb1

Saletan on the VP debate: Runners Advance. Enjoy.

Slartibartfast

Saletan. What a card.

You heard 23 times that Kerry has a "plan" for some big problem or that Bush doesn't.

As much as we've seen plans from either side, I'm giving that one an F for both veracity and relevance.

You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges.

Great. Saletan thinks it's just keen that Edwards is catering to the Michael Moore crowd. During a VP debate, no less.

that Cheney "cut over 80 weapons systems,"

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.

You heard that a multimillionaire sitting by his swimming pool pays a lower tax rate than a soldier in Iraq.

And this is supposed to reflect poorly on Cheney, given that it's inaccurate?

The word "moral" was used twice in this debate.

Coming from a trial lawyer, though...but Saletan already knew that.

Edwards applied the same jujitsu elsewhere. He framed his vote against the $87 billion Iraq appropriation as a vote against a $7.5 billion "no-bid contract for Halliburton."

Which is utter horseshit. If he'd said so at the time, perhaps it might carry some weight.

My favorite moment came when Cheney impugned Edwards' voting record.

No, this was Cheney impugned Edwards' attendance record. Who'd Saletan pay to watch the debates for him, anyway?

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.

It took the Kerry campaign less than two hours to send reporters a picture of Cheney standing next to Edwards three years ago.

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.

abb1

Well, thanks. Nothing can make me happier than wingnuts turning against moderate Republicans.

Slartibartfast

So, I'm a wingnut for thinking Saletan's a jackass? What am I for thinking Rush Limbaugh is a jackass?

Mitch H.

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.

Slartibartfast

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.

abb1

Alright, all right. Don't get upset. You're doing fine. That was a joke.

sym

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.

Slartibartfast
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.

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.

Cecil Turner

"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.

Crank

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.

Slartibartfast
leaving aside whether Kerry even stands for anything

I'd leave it right there.

Tom Paine

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.

Lynxx Pherrett

"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.

sym

Oh, I know. It's too bad Bush has such a hard time simplifying complex messages.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame