Remember last week when Kerry made this remark:
“We’re going to keep pounding, let me tell you. We’re just beginning to fight here,” Kerry said. “These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen. It’s scary.”
His aides were quick to point out that Kerry was talking about the ‘Republican Attack Machine,’ because they knew the remarks, if directed towards the President, were beyond the pale:
Kerry did not specify to whom he was referring. But his spokesman Dick Wade said the comments targeted the “Republican attack machine” and not Bush or Cheney.
This damage control was enough to calm the storm, as it was widely represented that the ‘Republican Attack Machine’ wasmeant to be such evil individuals as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Guess what? Kerry was lying. In my home state of West Virginia, Kerry had the following to say:
“The Republican attack machine has welcomed me to West Virginia today with another distortion,” the Massachusetts senator told the veterans, adding that he voted against the bill because Bush refused to pay for it by rescinding some of his tax cuts.
What ‘Republican Attack Machine’ might that be, Sen. Kerry?
Before Kerry even arrived in Charleston, W.Va., for an event showcasing his support for veterans, President Bush had unveiled an ad on local TV accusing him of undercutting U.S. troops in Iraq by voting against war funding.
“John Kerry: Wrong on defense,” said the ad, which focused on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s 2003 vote against an $87 billion appropriations bill to fund military operations in Iraq.
They can’t even keep their lies internally consistent, or they hold us in such little regard that they are not even trying. Apparently, any disagreement over policy is an attack ad to the bozo’s. Then again, that is not surprising, since these are the same hacks that think that any analysis of Kerry’s voting record is an attack on his patriotism.
Of course, lying is nothing new for John Kerry.
Peter
Quote:
The International Herald Tribune recently quoted Zapatero as saying, “We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration.”
shark
So if Bush wins, Zapatero won’t take his calls?
HH
Ya know, when it’s pointed out that Libya’s disarmament, just for example, would probably not have happened without the war in Iraq (or at the very least it was a big factor, as admitted by Qadhafi himself, at least twice), the left says they are just coming up with reasons to back up their claims after the fact. But then it’s okay to back up Kerry’s claims about foreign leaders by the word of someone who wasn’t even elected until a few days ago (and who has never met Kerry).
Dean
HH:
I hadn’t thought of this before, but it must be b/c I suffer from simplisme.
When one looks at international events, apparently the Left finds A-to-B connections excessively simple.
Libya turns in its WMD programs now, rather than six months ago or six months from now? NOT due to the Iraq War.
Spain votes in a Socialist gov’t despite PP leading in several major polls (See Iberian Notes for specific polling data)? NOT due to the bombing.
What’s next, I wonder…
HH
And now Dean tells us that the bombing is all Bush’s fault because al Qaeda allegedly said it was due to Iraq… but I guess it’s not due to Afghanistan as al Qaeda also allegedly said.
HH
That’s Howard, not you. ;)
just saying
“Libya turns in its WMD programs now, rather than six months ago or six months from now? NOT due to the Iraq War.”
But al-Islam said the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Libya’s decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs.
“It was long and tough and secret negotiations for almost nine months, but at the end, two weeks ago, we closed a deal and we said okay, now it is a done deal,” he said.
“In fact we started the cooperation before even the invasion of Iraq and we decided to announce the outcome of that cooperation two weeks ago, and that means the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant.”
Dean
just saying, nice quote.
The VERY LAST SENTENCE before that quote noted:
“Libya’s move was the culmination of secret negotiations with Britain and the United States launched around the start of the US-led Iraq war and announced less than a week after US forces captured ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.”
Now, far be it for me to suggest that a politician might be lying. I mean, only Dubya would do that. But I have to wonder, just a teensy bit, if you think that might, just might, mind you, be the case here?
HH
Don’t you know Islamists always tell the truth… like those alleged al Qaeda people “endorsing” Bush. I’m sure they’ve never heard of reverse psychology over there.
Despite the reporter’s attempt to spin it, Kadhafi never denies that Iraq was a factor:
The “reality of the world” includes the war on Iraq.
HH
Oops “this is the policy of the world” is the end of the quote.
M. Scott Eiland
“And now Dean tells us that the bombing is all Bush’s fault because al Qaeda allegedly said it was due to Iraq… but I guess it’s not due to Afghanistan as al Qaeda also allegedly said.”
I think it needs to be said again that–whatever Kerry’s flaws as a candidate–the vast majority of Democratic primary voters should be commended for their blunt and overwhelming rejection of the Asshat from Vermont.