ColWTH
03-18-2004, 03:21 PM
This is a great summing up of John Kerry’s lies, misstatements and out right reversals from the writer Noemie Emery in the article "The Battle of the Biographies" in the March 15th, 2004 Weekly Standard.
Kerry’s MO is to support something (or at least not attack it) and them attack people who act on his words. He attacks Bush for trashing the Kyoto Treaty, but he did not support it when it came up in the Senate; voted for Bush’s education program, and the savaged it; supported the Patriot Act, and savaged John Ashcroft when he carried it out, He was for a unilateral American foreign policy when proposed by bill Clinton, against it when suggested by either George Bush. There is always and "out" built into his positions. "While trying to do the right thing, Kerry has always sought to make himself a thinner target," William Saletan observed in Slate. "He was for affirmative action, just not THIS affirmative action. He was for a drug war, just not THIS drug war. He was for an Iraq war, just not this Iraq war." He is for everything in the abstract but not in the particular, and never in the way it’s carried out. He is for an ideal, but never in the form presented; for weapons systems, but not those actually proposed; for the use of force, but under no conditions that anybody can imagine or foresee. He voted against the first gulf War in 1991, but said he was not against using force then, and he voted for the second Gulf War in 2001, but said he never imagined that force would be used. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, he attacked George Bush the younger for not having taken the route followed by George Bush the elder, which he hadn’t supported at the time. In 1991, he accused the elder George Bush of a "rush into war" (does this sound familiar?) and derided his coalition as a "bizarre new bedfellows" and "shadowy battlefield allies".
Kerry’s MO is to support something (or at least not attack it) and them attack people who act on his words. He attacks Bush for trashing the Kyoto Treaty, but he did not support it when it came up in the Senate; voted for Bush’s education program, and the savaged it; supported the Patriot Act, and savaged John Ashcroft when he carried it out, He was for a unilateral American foreign policy when proposed by bill Clinton, against it when suggested by either George Bush. There is always and "out" built into his positions. "While trying to do the right thing, Kerry has always sought to make himself a thinner target," William Saletan observed in Slate. "He was for affirmative action, just not THIS affirmative action. He was for a drug war, just not THIS drug war. He was for an Iraq war, just not this Iraq war." He is for everything in the abstract but not in the particular, and never in the way it’s carried out. He is for an ideal, but never in the form presented; for weapons systems, but not those actually proposed; for the use of force, but under no conditions that anybody can imagine or foresee. He voted against the first gulf War in 1991, but said he was not against using force then, and he voted for the second Gulf War in 2001, but said he never imagined that force would be used. In 2002, 2003 and 2004, he attacked George Bush the younger for not having taken the route followed by George Bush the elder, which he hadn’t supported at the time. In 1991, he accused the elder George Bush of a "rush into war" (does this sound familiar?) and derided his coalition as a "bizarre new bedfellows" and "shadowy battlefield allies".