|
« The threat to the west
Main |
February 11, 2004
Kerry's mask slips
War hero yesterday, appeasenik today. Senator John Kerry's claim to be as resolute against terror as President Bush on the grounds of his Vietnam war record may just take a bit of a knock from this Tehran Times report of an email his office has sent to an Iranian news agency. Here it is: 'The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows. 'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others. 'We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer. 'An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and central to this campaign Kerry has the experience and the understanding necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in meeting the challenges we face throughout the world. 'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well. 'We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more stable world.' Iran is of course a key player in the axis of terror and hell-bent on adding nuclear weapons to its terror arsenal. Yet Kerry wants to 'repair' America's relationship with it. He appear to think that to 'collaborate' with terror states is what the defence against terror is all about. Oh dear. Posted by melanie at February 11, 2004
Comments
Spoofed IP I presume, no MyDoom Payload then ? Posted by: ?????? at February 11, 2004 01:06 PMMelanie, I'm not sure that you can get your head around this concept but just because George Bush goes around talking about countries being part of an "axis of evil" does not mean others have to agree with him. Indeed, we might hope that those who belong to the opposition party and who have slightly more developed mental faculties would not. It's called being part of a multi-party democracy.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry will seek direct talks with North Korea and Iran but stay tough with both countries if he wins the White House, his foreign policy chief said. Rand Beers, national security issues coordinator for the Massachusetts senator, was critical of President George W. Bush for shunning direct dialogue with the two countries after branding them members of an "axis of evil." Speaking to a foreign policy forum, Beers said the question of nuclear non-proliferation was one of the most significant issues facing the world and Washington should press harder to advance negotiations. "John Kerry believes that the United States should be prepared to talk directly to North Korea," he told the gathering at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank here. Brendan wrote, in regard to President Bush: ' . . . .a user of cocaine' A charge for which there is not a scintilla of evidence. The last person who claimed to have the 'proof' of this baseless charge turned out to be convicted felon and con-man, who duped a book publisher out of an advance rumoured to be in excess of $100,000 on the promise to produce this 'evidence'. Needless to say, he did not have it. I see that Brendan is about as good at fact-checking as the book publisher was. But that's the Democrats for you. Never let the facts - or lack thereof - stand in the way of a good smear. No charge or innuendo is so base that it cannot be thrown at President Bush. No evidence to the contrary will ever be accepted (think 'National Guard service'), no absence of evidence will ever cause the charge to be withdrawn (think 'cocaine user'). As Horace Rumpole used to opine, you couldn't get a conviction for unrenewed dog-licence based on the evidence for these sorts of charges, yet the liberal media in the US and abroad toss them around as though they were proven fact. And Brendan duly parrots them here. Meanwhile, his Democratic challenger can slide along doing things which demonstrably defy any innocent explanation. Perhaps, Brendan, you can explain for us how a man can close a $6 million mortgage on his share of a marital-roperty residence, based solely on an annual income of less than $150,000. Even if he got the deal at 4% and for 30 years, his annual payments would be $344,000. Can't be done, can it? Who was the recipient of this fiscal miracle? Answer - Senator John F. Kerry. It's all a matter of public record, yet no major media outlet so much as whipped out a calculator to determine how patently absurd it is. Ah, but Kerry promises to talk to the North Koreans. But why would they listen? They've ignored everyone else who has talked to them for the last 50 years - everyone, that is except President Bush, who backed his words with consequences and who the North Koreans apparently believe means what he says. John Kerry? Hell, his (second) wife wouldn't even marry him without a pre-nuptual agreement, and she loves him! Somehow, I doubt very much that Kim Jong-Il is going to be much upset at the prospect of a really, really good talking-to from John Kerry. 'Stay tough'? John Kerry's toughest decision over the last 30 years was whether to dump his first heiress wife so he could marry his second heiress wife. His history in the Senate is one of serial vacillation, blowing like a reed in the wind of whatever he thinks will gain him the most votes. 'Staying tough' means that you stay the course and do what you say you're going to do. Having regard to those concepts, who springs to mind? George Bush? Or John Kerry? (Walks away, humming the tune from 'Just a Gigolo . . .) llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 11, 2004 06:06 PMllamas, You're barking up the wrong tree with me my friend. I'm not promoting Kerry, I'm challenging the notion that he must be wrong because he wants a different foreign policy to that of G W Bush. As for coke (and notice you didn't deny the alcohol abuse history and I could have added his conviction for driving - or rather crashing - while drunk) you're right there is no definitive proof that he snorted coke for years, just as there is no definitive proof that Elvis is dead. But leaving aside the witnesses, there is also his answer to the question whether he could have signed the statement about not having used illegal drugs which his father signed when he became president. Bush said it depended when he was asked to sign it. And if you think it's discredited rubbish, have a look in Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Oh no, that won't count for you will it because he's a Democrat too. Posted by: Brendan at February 11, 2004 06:35 PMBrendan wrote: 'As for coke (and notice you didn't deny the alcohol abuse history and I could have added his conviction for driving - or rather crashing - while drunk) you're right there is no definitive proof that he snorted coke for years, just as there is no definitive proof that Elvis is dead. But leaving aside the witnesses, there is also his answer to the question whether he could have signed the statement about not having used illegal drugs which his father signed when he became president. Bush said it depended when he was asked to sign it. And if you think it's discredited rubbish, have a look in Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Oh no, that won't count for you will it because he's a Democrat too.' Deny his history of alcohol abuse? Why would I? That at least is true, he has admitted it fully, and there's plenty of real evidence to back it up. I wish you'd get your facts straight, though. President Bush was arrested in September 1976 in Kennebunkport, ME, for DUI. There was no crash. Public records, all over the Internet, simple Google search - try it some time. It looks dangerously as though you're castigating me for not denying something that I had no intention of denying in the first place. Pretty weak stuff, there. "No definitive proof"? What, you've been taking lessons from Al Gore? But so we see the logical standards of your average Democrat - if there is no 'definitive proof' to the contrary, we may make any allegation we desire and not be called on it. Newsflash, Brendan - Elvis really is dead. Sightings of him in Kalamazoo diners approach the credibility of - oh, let's say, the credibility of allegations that President Bush used cocaine. "Leaving aside the witnesses"? WHAT witnesses? Give us a link - please - and try not to make it to the ravings of a convicted felon and con-man. I've read Franken's book. It's a perfect example of the sort of innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense that passes for reasoned discussion in the sorts of circles in which Franken moves. The man is a comic, selling comic books. The Michael Moore of the written word, the truth is not in him. I don't discount what he says because he's a Democrat - some of my best friends are Democrats - I discount what he says because most of it is speculation, devoid of proof or mere expressions of personal opinion. Incidentally, is that the same Al Franken who responds to hecklers by assaulting them? I rather think it is . . . . I'd still be interested to know how a man can get that sort of a mortgage - I note that you passed that one by at a great distance. I would too - it reeks to high heaven, doesn't it? But I'd be more interested to know how he can do so, and never be questioned on it, while President Bush is continually called upon to address charges which have no basis or which are impossible to disprove. When did John Kerry stop beating his wife? Oh, and I'm not barking up any tree with you. And you're not my friend (you wish), so spare me the arm-around-the-shoulders BS. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 11, 2004 07:03 PMllamas old chum, We've established that George Bush was an alcoholic. That he was a drink driver who may or may not have crashed his car when drunk (I thought he ran off the road and into a hedge but if not I take it back) and that some people allege he was a coke users but others say that's not true. But it's not so bad because John Kerry beat his wife and has a large mortgage. Glad we cleared up those points. Which brings me back to where I started. It's ludicrous for Melanie Phillips to claim that Kerry is somehow "revealed" to be supporting terrorism because he wants a different foreign policy to Bush. It's called democracy and giving the voters a choice and having a more sophisticated view of the word than one ex-alcoholic, drunk driving maybe coke sniffing US President has. And I thought Bush supported Israel, with its state death squads; the military dictatorship in Pakistan which was the main sponsor of al-Quida; those righteous upholders of democracy in Saudi Arabia; and of course those freedom loving Chinese. Me old china. Posted by: Brendan at February 11, 2004 09:24 PMWell in contrast to Brendan I don't believe the Email is genuine. It sounds like one of those political dirty-tricks that tend to occur....Kerry has no reason to contact an Iranian news agency............... The kind of muckraking Brendan goes in for is what corrodes democracy and participation.........it is like going on about the Irish Prime Minister living with his mistress and taking her on State visits although he has a wife already....... Posted by: Romulus at February 11, 2004 10:38 PMRomulus - don't know if that last one was meant to rile me but you'll have to try harder. I was in the British Army, me old mate. Posted by: Monica at February 11, 2004 11:30 PM"Romulus - don't know if that last one was meant to rile me but you'll have to try harder. I was in the British Army, me old mate"
So much for Ms Phillips' support for free speech. It seems to end when somebody agrees with her poster boy Posted by: bb at February 12, 2004 10:14 AMBrendan wrote: 'We've established that George Bush was an alcoholic. That he was a drink driver who may or may not have crashed his car when drunk (I thought he ran off the road and into a hedge but if not I take it back) and that some people allege he was a coke users but others say that's not true. But it's not so bad because John Kerry beat his wife and has a large mortgage. Glad we cleared up those points.' You may think they are cleared up. I appreciate your attempts to suggest that I'm trying to place them in some sort of moral equivalence here, but sorry, no cigar. Firstly, of course, I am not seriously suggesting that John Kerry beats his wife or ever has. The question 'when did you stop beating your wife?' is a common means of demonstrating several rhetorical paradoxes, including the impossibility of proving a negative and the dilemma of false choices. I apologize if I used a rhetorical device with which you are not familiar. As to John Kerry's mortgage - I will take leave to presume that you are not so dense that you do not understand the issue, but are merely being deliberately obtuse. John Kerry obtained a mortgage which he cannot possibly repay himself, based on his declared income. He obtained it for the stated purpose of supporting his Presidential campaign, and indeed, I think it is a matter of public record that the money has already been spent on TV commercials. The question is quite simple. Who's making the payments? It may be that his wife is making the payments - she certainly has the resources. This may or may not be a breach of campaign finance laws. It may be that he chose this route because he did not care for the public appearance of taking a huge loan or gift from his wife for this purpose. Letting his heiress wife pay his way to the Presidency might not play very well with Democratic voters. Or it may be that others are making the payments, or the payments are being deferred - certainly and extremely odd arrangment, which should atttract the attention of those who regulate campaign financing. Whatever the case - my issue is not that he did this, but that he simply gets a free pass on it. The media have simply passed it by. Anyone with a calculator and a basic knowledge of mortgage financing knows that this is a highly unusual deal, to say the least. Yet noone has publicly questioned him on it. If President Bush had reported such a piece of finance - do you seriously believe that he would have gotten this kind of a 'bye' on it? Come we now to this: 'It's ludicrous for Melanie Phillips to claim that Kerry is somehow "revealed" to be supporting terrorism because he wants a different foreign policy to Bush. It's called democracy and giving the voters a choice and having a more sophisticated view of the word than one ex-alcoholic, drunk driving maybe coke sniffing US President has.' Firstly, of course, Melanie Phillips claims no such thing. I don't see how you can read that into anything that she wrote. Noone's suggesting that Kerry is supporting terrorism. But what is fairly clear is that he intends to take a very different approach than President Bush has done - if he is elected. Kerry's apparoach will be that of multilateralism, negotiation and appeasement - what you choose to call 'more sophisticated' and what a more objective observer might call 'the approach that has not worked'. Stupidity is sometimes defined as doing the same thing, in the same way, and expecting the outcome to be different. Kerry's approach to the problems of international terrorism has been done to death for the last 30 years and it Simply Doesn't Work. It might be described as the Clinton Doctrine - leave them alone or buy them off. This may seem 'more sophisticated' to you, but the ugly fact is that it is also 'completely unsuccessful'. President Bush grasps this dilemma quite well, and has taken a different approach. 'Sophisticated' is a luxury which we cannot afford - we need an approach which gets the job done. In the movie 'The Untouchables', there is a scene where Sean Connery's character is telling Kevin Costner's character how to 'get Capone'. Costner's character wants to do the job by-the-book. Connery's character tells him what to do when that doesn't work: 'He pulls a knife - you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital - you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone' Unpalatable, isn't it? How very unsophisticated. But it's getting the job done. Look, Kerry is mired in a multilateralist worldview that says that anything and everything can be solved if we all just sit down and talk about it. In his mind, the UN actually does something useful and prevents international violence and terrorism. If he is elected, that is the path that he will take, and people will die because of it, because terrorists, and especially Islamic terrorists, don't give a toss about meaningful dialogue and sophisticated international relations - they're out to kill infidels and impose their religion on as much of the world as they can get their hands on. They have said and demonstrated as much. Now, if we can't get along in mutual amity, then one side or another is going to have to get along in fear. Either we have to live in perpetual fear of them, or they have to live in perpetual fear of us. I know which of the two I believe has the best chance of producing long-term peace, and I think President Bush does as well. He's not going to pay the Danegeld - and John Kerry is. I know - it's so unsophisticated, isn't it? Quel horreur. I always smile when I hear liberals whine and pule about how 'unsophisticated' President Bush is in these matters, and how those who oppose him have 'slightly more developed mental faculties . . . ' (a direct quote, I think . . ). It is the politics of the schoolyard. 'You're wrong! Oh yeah? Well, you're just stupid! I'm smarter than you, you're just Dumb!' And it's about the only rhetoric which Democrats have available, since neither facts nor history support their policies. If anyone is 'unsophisticated' in all of this, it is the Islamic terrorists who seek to impose their religion by blood and fire. But you never hear liberals trying to persuade them to change their views. I wonder why that is . . . . ? llater, llamas
There's also a story that Kerry's grandfather's real name was Kohn, so he probably just about qualifies as a self-hating Jew in the minds of Arab-cousin semites such as Charles. But no doubt the neocon disinfo machine is working on the rumour that the senator's real name is Al-Queri. Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 12, 2004 12:08 PMllamas Bravo! Encore! No perhaps not; Brendan will disappear in a final act of auto-combustion if you stoke him up any more. A short sharp shower of shite into the stratosphere, and no more Brendan. Come to think of it .... ENCORE! Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 12, 2004 01:19 PMllamas, I think we're clear and largely agreed on this. Kerry has a different approach to foreign policy to that of Bush. He's presenting the electors with a choice on this and other matters. You disagree with his approach. I presume this means you won't vote for him (if you have a vote). Good for you. And he has a large mortgage but does not to our knowledge beat his wife. Excellent too. But Phillips says he wants to "'collaborate' with terror states". Now I think it's pretty plain use of English to suggest that if you collaborate with someone you support them, so she has indeed suggested that he wishes to support "terror states". And sorry to say Frank Pully but I'm not about to combust. Neither am I holding my breath for you to make a worthwhile contribution to any of these discussions. WJ Phillips, you are truly stupid and I hope Melanie bans you soon so you will stop spreading your filth on this site. Posted by: kid charlemagne at February 12, 2004 02:36 PMKid: I love you too. Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 12, 2004 04:08 PMI don't understand the problem here. Kerry simply wants what many Americans, especially Democrats, want: to repair relations with allies over whom Bush has run roughshod. The U.S. cannot just be so heavy-handed with paying serious consequences. That doesn't mean that we have to be gooey-eyed vis-a-vis Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria. It just means that we have to be smarter. We need have no illusions about these countries (or about France or Germany, for that matter), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognize that we have to take them into account. No man is an island. No country is either, no matter how powerful. Kerry is no raging radical. He wears the mask of a moderately liberal, sensible senator. And behind that mask is...a moderately liberal, sensible senator. I'm voting for Kerry if he runs on the Democratic ticket this November. Then again, I'd vote for Donald Duck if he were to run on the Democratic ticket this November. Anyone but Bush. Sorry, Melanie. Posted by: Joanne at February 12, 2004 05:11 PMJoanne wrote: 'Kerry is no raging radical. He wears the mask of a moderately liberal, sensible senator. And behind that mask is...a moderately liberal, sensible senator.' Well, to each his own. Who would you call a liberal Senator? Someone like Edward Kennedy, for example? I would. And it comes as no surprise that, in multiple analyses by various groups across the political spectrum, Kerry comes up as being at least as liberal as Kennedy - sometimes, far more so. From the National Journal on the right, to Americans for Democratic Action and the League of Conservation voters on the left, all unanimously decided - after analysing Kerry's voting record in the Senate, and not his talk on the stump - that he's a social and fiscal liberal right out of the Kennedy mould. If that's your idea of a 'moderate liberal, sensible . . . ' - I'd hate to meet your idea of a 'raging radical'. And really, now - 'anyone but Bush'? Anyone? If a convicted axe-murderer won the Democratic nomaination - would you vote for him/her? After all, it's 'anyone but Bush'? You'd vote for Donald Duck against President Bush? Really? Your politics are that superficial and trivialized? I suggest that you dishonour your franchise when you don't consider your vote in any more depth than that. Sure, we want to repair relations with other countries. Everyone wants to get along peacefully. But not at any price. That sort of appeasement - the 'Clinton Doctrine' - reflects Winston Churchill's famous dictum about appeasement consisting of giving in to the demands of the crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last. Kerry will pay any price - any price - for the transient chimera of domestic tranquillity. Be careful what you ask for - he might just give it to you. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 12, 2004 05:49 PMOh, for Pete's sakes! It was a broadcast e-mail and someone from the Iranian News site was a list member. SO WHAT! The e-mail hardly "unmasks" Kerry as being "soft on terror." Give it a rest, Melanie. You are way off base here. :-( Lili Posted by: Lilith at February 12, 2004 06:21 PMAapprently, John Kerry's mask is not the only thing that has slipped . . . . www.drudgereport.com llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 12, 2004 08:37 PMWell we know that he isn't worthy of a vote because he's got a large mortgage, doesn't beat his wife, isn't a drunk or a drug abuser and didn't dodge the draft. Jesus - what a loser! Posted by: Brendan at February 13, 2004 09:47 AMHow much of a loser do you think he will become if the allegations being reported on the Drudge Report turn out to be true? Lest we forget, President Clinton vehemently denied rather-similiar allegations made on the Drudge Report, some 6 years ago now, and later had to admit that every allegation was true in every material detail. Drudge is generally right. Now, there's no proof of any of this yet, so we should reserve judgement. But the story is developing. British newspapers are naming names, I'm sure that there's reporters from foreign agencies just flying hither-and-yon. We shall see. But two things stand out. 1) if similar allegations were being made about President Bush - does anyone seriously believe that we would see the stone silence about them that we presently see in the major media? Double standard, anyone? 2) If the allegations are true - and I reiterate, we do not know, we will have to wait and see - but if they are true - what would this tell us about John Kerry as a candidate? Bear in mind that the allegations refer to a period from 2001 to 2003, during which time he was well-known to be planning a run for the Democratic nomination. Not to some indiscretions from his youth, or from the days when he was single. Well, it would tell us that he is hopelessly out of touch with his constituency. Allegations like this are the single, sure-fire way to alienate the largest single identifiable group of Democratic voters - white women. It would show that he has learned nothing at all from the past and the examples of others - Gary Hart and President Clinton, to name but two. It would show either arrogance. or stupidity, or both, if he thought that he would either a) not be found out or b) that it would be overlooked or excused. If it is true, it would show that he was prepared to risk his career, as well as the health of his party, for some fleeting piece of personal pleasure. And - if it is true - that's the price we will all pay, regardless of party. I actually hope very much that it is not true. Because if it is, the Democratic party nomination process will implode, the most popular candidate for the nomination will be gone, and we will be left with a choice between the crazed ideologue Dean and the smooth-talking personal-injury lawyer Edwards, neither one of whom is electable. My point - and I do have one - is that as voters in a multiparty deomocracy, we are entitled to hope that we will see a real choice of candidates, and that even though only one can win, the election process will produce a result that most closely matches the desires of the electorate. For all that I very much favour President Bush, winning by a landslide, more-or-less unopposed (which is what will happen if Kerry implodes) is not good for our democracy. Even a president as good as President Bush has been needs the sea-anchor of a real and credible opposition to keep him on course. There's one other lesson we can learn from this, and it is true independent of whether or not the allegations about Kerry are true. There seems to be no question that these allegations come, not from some Republican dirty-tricks campaign, but from the campaign of General Wesley Clark, via an operative closely associated with the Gore wing of the Democratic party. Names have been named, witnesses have confirmed it, and he's not denying it. We therefore get to watch the Democrats killing and eating their own. If they're prepared to do that to each other - it doesn't bode very well for what they're prepared to do to win the Presidency. We'll watch and learn. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 13, 2004 11:32 AMLlamas, I think that you should know that someone is using your nickname to post here and make you look stupid. A few days ago you said “we see the logical standards of your average Democrat - if there is no 'definitive proof' to the contrary, we may make any allegation we desire and not be called on it.” And “[Franken’s book is] a perfect example of the sort of innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense that passes for reasoned discussion in the sorts of circles in which Franken moves. … I discount what [Moore] says because most of it is speculation, devoid of proof…” But now some crafty comic has logged in using your name, repeated some toitally unsubstantiated rumours about John Kerry and even admitted “there's no proof of any of this yet” (don't you just love the "yet" bit). I think the hoaxer should be exposed because he’s plainly out to make you look like a hypocritical idiot. No, you're wrong about that, too. Or again, take your pick. Read with care. I said - four different times, in four different ways - that the allegations being made about Kerry are unproven and that we must wait and see what comes of them. Would that you exercised the same caution before throwing around such allegations as 'cocaine user'. I observed that Drudge is usually right - because it's true. Ask Sidney Blumenthal. Or President Clinton, come to that . . . I then went on to speculate what the impact of this would be - if it is true. Every word I wrote was entirely conditional. I even said, quite clearly, that I hope it is not true, and why. Now, if you can actually define a single instance of hypocrisy in there - be my guest. Unless, of course, you define 'hypocrisy' as being 'any conditioned speculation about a Democrat'. As I said - we'll watch and learn. We've already watched and learned that your comprehension skills are sub-par, I wonder what else we'll learn before all is said and done. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 13, 2004 01:53 PMBrendan, Aha, a bimbo eruption! Is the little lady a honeytrapper like Monica? Posted by: Centinela DelVayo at February 13, 2004 03:17 PMI'm struggling to distinguish between your "innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense and speculation, devoid of proof…” Oh hang on: now I see the difference. One was about a politician you support and one about a politician you don't support. No hypocrisy there then. Posted by: Brendan at February 13, 2004 03:58 PMThe difference is, of course, something else completely. When you - or Al Franken, or Michael Moore, for that matter, since they were the subjects of the words you put in quotes, and you are mostly parrotting what they say anyway - repeated unsubtantiated allegations about President Bush, you/he/they repeat them as though they were proven facts. No conditions, no nothing. You described President Bush as 'being . . a user of cocaine'. Not an 'alleged' user, not a word about whether or not there is any evidence for the charge - it's just presented as fact. Do you see the difference? No, you don't. What it looks like to me is that you just can't deal with the fact that what you were pleased to do to President Bush - repeat unsubtantiated allegations - has now come around to bite you in the ass. Kerry is in the spotlight, and, as I said, a spotlight that has plenty of credibility and proven track record of being right on the money. As hypocrites often do, you lash out in anger at the person who lays your hypocrisy bare. If you can't take it, you might want to think twice before you dish it out, the next time. (note to self) Unable to maintain a consistent, logical position. Put on 'ignore'. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 13, 2004 04:12 PMYou can safely vote for Kerry or Bush; each has the essential feature of candidates for the Us Presidency, being a rich man......usually a lawyer......pretending to be a Washington Outsider..........
'You can safely vote for Kerry or Bush; each has the essential feature of candidates for the Us Presidency, being a rich man......usually a lawyer......pretending to be a Washington Outsider..........' Not quite so. Neither Kerry nor Bush are lawyers, in the sense of having any legal training or qualifications. Kerry has been a legislator - a law-maker - since 1984. Bush has never held any legislative office at any level. Kerry is most definitely not a rich man in his own right. The Center for Public Integrity shows his net worth, in his own right, at less than $1 million at the highest possible valuations, and probably considerably less than that. His wife is, of course, stinking rich, but her assets are the subject of a pre-nuptual agreement and are only available to her husband as she chooses to make them so. The same source shows the net worth of George W. and Laura Bush at between $10 and $20 million, depending on time and valuations. The vast majority of their assets, apart from their home in Crawford, TX, are in the form of long-term US Treasury notes. That's certainly several clicks above 'comfortably-off'. Washington outsider? Well, I suppose one would say that the US president is, almost by definition, the ultimate Washington insider. But the first position in the Federal government which George Bush has held is the one he holds now. Prior to that, all of his public service was as Governor of Texas. Kerry has been 20 years in the US Senate, so he's about as much of a Washington insider as it gets.
llater, llamas So far you have a point, but George Bush had a father who was a US Senator and I suppose he spent time in Georgetown; Kerry was estimated to have $2.5m in the sources I read which mereley makes him an "average American"
Both Skull & Bones, both non-bald, both white, both married with kids, both ostensibly religious, both millionaires. A presidential race that looks like America (not). Turnout last time was 59%. This time under 50%? Maybe not quite, but it's refreshing how many citizens of Moronica have rejected the farce of "choice" between the two branches of the Welfare/Warfare Party. Meanwhile, the "most powerful nation in the history of the world" (TM) continues not to track down OBL while its currency sinks to new lows against sterling and the Euro. Currency traders see further than pundits. Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 13, 2004 06:47 PMAs I said "I'm struggling to distinguish between your "innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense and speculation, devoid of proof…” If the difference was that you made clear that there was no proof you did then add the all important word "yet". You said it was the tactic of the despicable Democrats to spread unproven tales about others and then you do the exact same thing yourself. Hypocrite. If it's a get out of jail free to then add that there is not yet proof then maybe you would like the following. It has been reported today that George Bush paid a bribe in order to escape the Vietnam draft. He is also alleged to have taken kick-backs from US constuction companies to win contracts in Iraq. Journalists are also looking into claims that he murdered one of the regular prostitutes he used back in the 1970's and have begun to exhume a body in the search for clues. There is no firm evidence yet to secure a conviction. That's OK with you then, is it? Posted by: Brendan at February 13, 2004 08:05 PMWell, since I see a glimmering of logical consistency - and have time to waste . . . Brendan wrote: 'It has been reported today that George Bush paid a bribe in order to escape the Vietnam draft. He is also alleged to have taken kick-backs from US constuction companies to win contracts in Iraq. Journalists are also looking into claims that he murdered one of the regular prostitutes he used back in the 1970's and have begun to exhume a body in the search for clues. There is no firm evidence yet to secure a conviction. That's OK with you then, is it?' Maybe. Is it true, insofar as it goes? Has it been 'reported', or has it been 'alleged'? Are journalists really 'looking into claims?' That sentence, of course, is a trap in itself since it contains three separate allegations - that he used prostitutes, that he used them regularly, and that he murdered one of them. The first two statements are presented as fact, not as allegation - 'the regular prostitutes he used'. Which is which? What is alleged, what is asserted? If anything is asserted as fact, what is the evidence? Are journalists really planning to exhume a body? You have to say what you mean, and it has to be true. The evidentiary standard - 'firm evidence . . . to secure a conviction' is not necessarily applicable, since some of the allegations which appear to made are not necessarily crimes. A conviction may also be moot if the statute of limitations for alleged crimes has passed, since no prosecution can lie and therefore no conviction can be obtained, regardless of the evidence. See how hard this is? But never fear, persevere and you'll get it. Bear in mind, for example, that President Clinton's admission of his dalliance with Miss Lewinsky, which he had previously categorically denied, was in itself no evidence of any crime for which he could have been tried or convicted. That came later. Having shot your outburst full of holes, let's see if we can't get you on the right track. Something like this: 'Allegations have been made by (insert name of allegers here - if none, enter 'anonymous') that President Bush - paid a bribe to avoid the Vietnam draft To date, no credible evidence has been brought forth to support any of these allegations, or any part of them' Then that would be just fine with me. So long as all the facts you assert are true - are true. No charge for the lesson. Just use it well. If you have any further problems, feel free to study my post above discussing the allegations against Senator Kerry, and you won't go far wrong. Tell you what. Go find Senator Kerry's answer to the Question Direct on MSNBC this morning, and come back here and tell us what you gleaned from it. Here endeth the lesson. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 13, 2004 11:46 PMChrist it's true - Americans really don't do irony. Or satire. Posted by: Brendan at February 14, 2004 12:16 AMAmericans? Whoever are you referring to? This is, of course, the 'heh, heh, I was only joking, it was just satire, heh, heh . . . ' excuse. Often used, as in this case, to try and correct a case of foot-in-mouth disease. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 14, 2004 02:14 PMAmericans do indeed "do" irony and satire. That's a British myth that they don't. Only, you have to speak to the right Americans. And remember that irony does not travel well via the Web. Much depends on tone, manner, and context. Llighten up, llamas. My politics aren't trivial. It was trivial of you to make that judgment based on one short posting. Kennedy is no radical, either. And yes, I would prefer Kerry, Dean or Edwards against Bush. At least they wouldn't be cutting back on badly needed medical coverage for the poor and elderly, enacting tax cuts for the rich while our budget deficit is climbing, and they wouldn't have gotten us into that bog in Iraq. I case you need this spelled out to you, here it comes: My reference to Donald Duck was a joke. So there. Posted by: Joanne at February 14, 2004 05:43 PMHe castigates others for spreading unsubsantiated rumours. Then does the exact same thing himself. Tries to excuse blatant hypocricy by saying he did say it was unproven. I provide a clearly satirical example of a false set of allegations which - by his logic - are fine because I say there's no proof. And he takes them at face value. Now either the guy does not get satire or he's dumb. To get caught red handed on the very same thread with such outright hypocricy does suggest a "cognitively challenged". Posted by: Brendan at February 14, 2004 06:42 PMHL Mencken did irony and satire. So did Mark Twain. Unfortunately neither is regarded as PC enough by current standards to be widely taught or read in the Land of the Free. A good starting point is Twain's priceless essay "The Noble Red Man". Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 15, 2004 10:22 AMBrendan wrote: 'He castigates others for spreading unsubsantiated rumours. Then does the exact same thing himself. Tries to excuse blatant hypocricy by saying he did say it was unproven. I provide a clearly satirical example of a false set of allegations which - by his logic - are fine because I say there's no proof. And he takes them at face value. Now either the guy does not get satire or he's dumb. To get caught red handed on the very same thread with such outright hypocricy does suggest a "cognitively challenged". I knew it was a glimmer, and fading fast. 'Excuse blatant hypocricy'(sic)?' Only someone with your challenged grasp of logic would see what I said as either hypocritical or requiring to be excused. 'Take(s) them at face value'? Sure. You obviously don't get out much, because allegations about President Bush every bit as serious as the ones you made up, and far worse, are floating around in the fringe media and on the Internet already. Clearly satirical? Obviously not. I did not castigate you for spreading unsubtantiated rumours, as you now claim. I castigated you for spreading unsubstantiated rumours as though they were proven facts. Your error is compounded by your ignorance of the fact that the particular story on which I called you (that President Bush was 'a user . . of cocaine') has been investigated to a fare-thee-well by his opponents and a media which generally wishes against hope that it were true, and no evidence has been found to support it. None. The man who last claimed he had the smoking gun on this story turned out to be a liar, a felon and a thief, who left a major US publisher out $100K and with egg all over its face. 'Does not get satire, or he's dumb' - false choice. There's at least one other explanation, which is that you cannot maintain a logical consistency in these matters, and I can, and you've been caught flat-footed. And we see, of course, the standard form of argument of the liberal, straight from the schoolyard - anyone who disagrees, must be 'dumb'. You fail the class. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 15, 2004 03:31 PMllamas - Go to today's (Sunday's) Drudge Report and click on columnist Bill Buckley. He explains, in a fine acidic etching, exactly how Hanoi John got the house loan. Posted by: Calimari at February 15, 2004 04:01 PMJoanne - I'll bet you believe the war against Saddam was all about oiiiiiiiiiil. Halliburton ... Dick Cheyney ... Brendan - You are conflating Mr with Mrs Bush. It was she who killed another driver in a traffic accident at a crossroads late at night in rural Texas when she was a young girl. She hadn't been drinking. Seems like the "intern" incident that Wesley Clark mysteriously predicted has legs after all. Hanoi John has bimbo form. His first heiress wife knew he was running around on her, because she told him if he caught anything off any of his bimbos and he passed it to her, "I'll maim you. I won't kill you; I'll maim you." Going by the picture in today's paper, the intern, currently in Kenya, isn't particularly pretty, although it was noted that she has "a stunning figure". Posted by: Caroline at February 15, 2004 04:16 PMAt the risk of repeating myself ... I'm still struggling to distinguish between your "innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense and speculation, devoid of proof…”which apparently is what the wicked Democrats deal in and your own Kerry smear, which seems to repeat innuendo and unsubstantiated speculation, devoid of proof. I do understand your point that you highlighted the entire speculative and unproven nature of the smear story but that's not much of an excuse is it? Would you have jumped on my contribution way back if I'd said that it had been rumoured that Bush used coke? Yes you would. Would you take a pop at someone who spread a rumour that Bush uses prostitutes or is a serial rapist or whatever, if there was not a shred of proof? Yes you would, even if the caveat was used that no firm proof yet exists (note the all important "yet" which you used). Whichever way you spell it, you're a hypocrite. Posted by: Brendan at February 15, 2004 04:35 PMCalimari - thanks for the link, I did read Mr Buckley's NRO column. But it really doesn't explain how he got the loan, nor how it is to be serviced. Essentially, I was asking the same question that Bill Buckley is asking, except, of course, that he asks it in a much more detailed and well-thought-out way. If it is, as Mr Buckley suggests, that Senator Kerry intends to repay this loan from 'undisclosed assets', that makes rather a mockery of the Senator's pledge of 'full disclosure' of his personal financial condition. What 'undisclosed' sources of income could he have that would not appear on his tax returns? I don't want to suggest that this pledge is somehow onerous or unique to the Senator - it is a commonplace among political candidates in the US. Brendan wrote: ' I'm still struggling to distinguish between your "innuendo and unsubstantiated nonsense and speculation, devoid of proof…”which apparently is what the wicked Democrats deal in and your own Kerry smear, which seems to repeat innuendo and unsubstantiated speculation, devoid of proof.' Oh, trust me, Brendan, I know you're struggling with this, that much is perfectly obvious. But don't worry, keep thinking about it and I'm sure you'll get it. As a smarter man than I once said, 'I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you'. Oh, and careful with the multiple generaliztions there. Not all Democrats do this (some of my best friends . . . .) and not all Democrats are wicked. Your use of the little word 'the' there tends to suggest this. Oh, how I do sound like President Clinton, to be sure . . . . llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 16, 2004 11:27 AMllamas - Yes, and it's all the more tangled because the Kerry house is joint property. So if he couldn't repay the loan, could the bank repossess half the house? Could his wife repay the loan - although, as the loan is being used to fund his campaign, this would mean that by so doing, she would be making an illegal contribution to his campaign. And you're right, how can you have full disclosure and then get bank loan secured by 'undisclosed' assets. No doubt we will find out as I think his campaign is going to stall over this intern. I hope so. I mean, how could anyone vote for someone who looks like Ed Muskie? He may indeed get into the position of not being able to repay the loan. Posted by: Calimari at February 16, 2004 11:48 AMNo, you sound like a hypocrite. So, leaving llamas's weird obsession with Kerry's mortgage and his view that it's OK to spread unsubstantiated smears provided (a) the target is a Democrat and (b) you add that the rumour has not YET been proven (but then go on to opine on the implications if it was) ... Back to where I started. Why does Melanie Phillips think that Kerry is supporting terrorism by saying he wants a dialogue with Iran? Would she feel the same way if he wanted a dialogue with, say, North Korea? I suspect not: reason being, they may be bad m-f's with nukes and an appalling human rights record but they're not Muslims. And that's not to forget Israel: ban m-f's with nukes and chemical and biological weapons, an appalling human rights record and illegally occupying territory but they're our m-f's, so that's OK. Posted by: Brendan at February 16, 2004 11:50 AMA quick guide to Brendan-speak, for newcomers to the discussion: Asking hard questions about a cogent matter of campaign finance, which defies common knowledge, simple arithmetic and the candidate's previous pledge of 'full financial disclosure' = a 'weird (sic) obsession' He wrote, of me: 'his view that it's OK to spread unsubstantiated smears provided (a) the target is a Democrat and (b) you add that the rumour has not YET been proven (but then go on to opine on the implications if it was) ...' Which is, of course, untrue, as anyone who reads this thread can see. Condition (a) is simply unmet. I said, above, that it's fine to repeat any allegation you like about anyone, Democrat or no, so long as you add condition (b) and every assertion of fact that you make is true. So we see the Brendan-style of argument - change the facts to suit the conclusion. It must indeed be a strange and unusual planet that Brendan inhabits, where it is 'hypocrisy' to speculate on the possible outcomes if, and only if, some reported but unproven allegation turns out to be true. By this thinking, of course, it would be hypocritical to speculate about any possible outcome of anything. Calimari - I don't think his campaign will stall over the 'intern' allegations and, unlike you, I hope it does not. The US media has been unnaturally quiet about this, as, indeed, it has been about the mortgage issue. However, the Senator has rather nailed his colours to the mast on the 'intern' issue, by denying it pretty thoroughly. What may sink him is if it does turn out to be substantially true, and he has to then answer for his 'categorical' denials. Just like President Clinton. However, what I think about it - that it has been, to this point, a matter that mostly concerns him, the young lady in question, and his wife, and in-and-of-itself, it really doesn't have much impact on his fitness for the office - doesn't change the fact that the majority of US voters don't see these matters in these ways. Especially several key Democratic constituencies. If it turns out to be substantially true, then it speaks volumes about Senator Kerry's failure to grasp the feeling of the voters that he seeks to represent. There I go again - speculating about a Democrat. What a hypocrite I am, to be sure . . . . llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 16, 2004 12:42 PMThe Kerry killer bimbo is engaged to a Mr Yaron Schwartzman who has a mysterious "movie job" in Kenya, having just moved from Israel. The girl is planning to convert. Why don't the Democans and Republicrats just ring MOSSAD and get an approved list of candidates beforehand? It would save a lot of time. Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 16, 2004 01:12 PM'Alleged' bimbo, if you please. Bear in mind also that Senator Kerry has 'categorically' the allegations of a relationship between himself and the young lady. llater, llamas Posted by: llamas at February 16, 2004 01:33 PM |
