Via a friend comes this beaut from the radical right-wing SFgate titled "Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts, Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort" that starts this way:
Washington -- No argument is more central to the Republican attack on Sen. John Kerry than the assertion that the Democrat has flip-flopped on Iraq.But then ends thus:
President Bush, seated beside Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Tuesday: "My opponent has taken so many different positions on Iraq that his statements are hardly credible at all.''
The allegation is the basis of a new Bush campaign TV ad that shows the Democratic senator from Massachusetts windsurfing to the strains of a Strauss waltz as a narrator intones: "Kerry voted for the Iraq war, opposed it, supported it and now opposes it again.''
Yet an examination of Kerry's words in more than 200 speeches and statements, comments during candidate forums and answers to reporters' questions does not support the accusation.
Kerry's enthusiastic words seem to conflict with his statement Monday at New York University.So we have now apparently moved on at warp speed from Rathergate's "fake -- but accurate" to "incoherent -- but consistent"? Bah-dah-dah-rrrrump!
"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But ... the satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure,'' Kerry said.
For a candidate who has been in elected office nearly a quarter of a century, Kerry has at times shown a remarkable inability to explain the nuances of his position.
Asked by radio host Don Imus last week to explain how he could be so critical of the war yet stand by his vote to authorize the use of force, Kerry responded with a 324-word answer, including a discussion of no-fly zones and Iraqi tribal separatism.
The response left Imus -- a self-described Kerry supporter -- perplexed.
"I was just back in my office banging my head on the jukebox,'' Imus told listeners when the interview was over. "This is my candidate, and ... I don't know what he's talking about.''
Did I forget to mention that I started out to fisk this article but found myself preempted by its author?
Posts
