Friday, September 24, 2004
Lying Liars And The Lying Lies They Lie About (Or Something Like That)
Lately there has been a lot of talk about the truth; who's telling it and who isn't. We've heard about memos, military service, military honors, commitments, WMD, ties to terrorism, thirty year-old testimony, voting records, business deals, and a myriad of other instances where the truth has been fudged, twisted, altered, or just plain obliterated. Every story has two sides and in this election year those two sides see things very differently. Over the last several days, the harshest accusations of not telling the truth have been leveled directly at President Bush by Senator John Kerry. Kerry claims that President Bush is not telling the American public the truth about the current situation in Iraq. According to Senator Kerry, the president and his entourage are purposely painting an overly optimistic picture to mislead voters into a sense of security and strength. Faced with a scathing criticism of that nature, a person might expect the president to fire back with some statistics, reports, or news accounts that would refute the Senator's claims, however, the only response from our president and his administration is to say that Kerry is being disrespectful.
Notice Cheney didn't say that John Kerry was wrong about his facts. Notice Cheney didn't give any examples of the "good that has been accomplished" to refute Senator Kerry's claims. No, Cheney gave an opinion. Why, because even he knows that John Kerry is right. And another thing, what was so disrespectful about what Kerry did? He told the truth when Prime Minister Allawi didn't. This isn't a social gathering we're dealing with here, it's a war in which our soldiers are being killed. It's not like Kerry said "Wow, Allawi's ass sure looked big in that suit." He pointed out the inconsistencies between what is being said by the president and his friend and what is being reported by our intelligence agencies and our military personel.
Now you might be asking yourself, what is President Bush's rection to all of this mess?
There are so many problems with this statement it's hard to know where to start. First of all, notice the lack of any facts, statistics, news accounts, etc. to prove Senator Kerry wrong. It's all opinion. And although Prime Minister Allawi may be friendly to the United States, he is not really a foriegn ally. He doesn't actually lead the country of Iraq. As I'm sure many others have pointed out, there is not a single Iraqi that voted for this man. He was appointed by us, so sure he's friendly to us, but to call him an "ally" is stretching it just a bit. And I find it ironic that Bush is talking about our allies as if most of them haven't abandoned us. Bush should stay away from the "allies" statements until he's actually built a coalition that includes others besides Great Britain.
Moving along, I have to say, I find his Freudian slip entertaining, but be honest, has anyone ever heard Kerry say that we would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Saying that "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" does not equal "I would prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power." As is the case in many situations, it's a twist on syntax. Instead of offering proof to the contrary, he's putting words in Kerry's mouth. This is the only way President Bush can counteract the Kerry attack: by changing what he has said.
President Bush can't run on the truth, it makes him look bad. With the truth on his side, Kerry will win in November. He just has to get the public to hear past the soundbites and see the emptiness in the Bush administration's rhetoric. He could start with next Thursday's debate.
Next week: Debate advice for the Kerry campaign.
- Kerry: "I think the prime minister is, obviously, contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country," Kerry said. "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."
.....
"George Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora," Kerry said in the brief interview Wednesday. "George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops. And George Bush said on the record we can't win the war on terror.
"And even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," Kerry said. "I think he's living in a make believe world."
Cheney: "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage, when he rushed to hold a press conference and attack the prime minister, a man America must stand beside to defeat the terrorists," Cheney told several thousand supporters.
"John Kerry is trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror," Cheney said. "As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech, and I quote, 'When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence.' End quote."
Notice Cheney didn't say that John Kerry was wrong about his facts. Notice Cheney didn't give any examples of the "good that has been accomplished" to refute Senator Kerry's claims. No, Cheney gave an opinion. Why, because even he knows that John Kerry is right. And another thing, what was so disrespectful about what Kerry did? He told the truth when Prime Minister Allawi didn't. This isn't a social gathering we're dealing with here, it's a war in which our soldiers are being killed. It's not like Kerry said "Wow, Allawi's ass sure looked big in that suit." He pointed out the inconsistencies between what is being said by the president and his friend and what is being reported by our intelligence agencies and our military personel.
Now you might be asking yourself, what is President Bush's rection to all of this mess?
- Bush:[Iraq] is going to have elections in January. Afghanistan is going to have them in October, and they'll be held in January. And my opponent chose to criticize the Prime Minister of Iraq. This great man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America, and Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Prime Minister Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility. The message ought to be to the Iraqi people, we support you. The message ought to be loud and clear: We'll stand with you if you do the hard work.
Earlier this week -- earlier this week, my opponent said he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today. You know, I just strongly disagree. It's tough work, no question about it. We've done tough work before. But if Saddam Hussein were in power, our security would be threatened. If Saddam Hussein -- in power, there'd still would be mass graves and torture chambers in Iraq. If Saddam Hussein were in power, the world would be better off, not -- the world would be worse off, not better off. And so I strongly disagree with the assessment of my opponent. I believe in liberty and I believe in freedom, and I believe liberty can change lives.
There are so many problems with this statement it's hard to know where to start. First of all, notice the lack of any facts, statistics, news accounts, etc. to prove Senator Kerry wrong. It's all opinion. And although Prime Minister Allawi may be friendly to the United States, he is not really a foriegn ally. He doesn't actually lead the country of Iraq. As I'm sure many others have pointed out, there is not a single Iraqi that voted for this man. He was appointed by us, so sure he's friendly to us, but to call him an "ally" is stretching it just a bit. And I find it ironic that Bush is talking about our allies as if most of them haven't abandoned us. Bush should stay away from the "allies" statements until he's actually built a coalition that includes others besides Great Britain.
Moving along, I have to say, I find his Freudian slip entertaining, but be honest, has anyone ever heard Kerry say that we would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Saying that "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" does not equal "I would prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power." As is the case in many situations, it's a twist on syntax. Instead of offering proof to the contrary, he's putting words in Kerry's mouth. This is the only way President Bush can counteract the Kerry attack: by changing what he has said.
President Bush can't run on the truth, it makes him look bad. With the truth on his side, Kerry will win in November. He just has to get the public to hear past the soundbites and see the emptiness in the Bush administration's rhetoric. He could start with next Thursday's debate.
Next week: Debate advice for the Kerry campaign.