Tuesday, July 06, 2004
INEXPERIENCED, DISINGENUOUS, ULTRA-LIBERAL AMBULANCE CHASER
Welcome to the party John! After this morning's selection by John Kerry of Southern senator John Edwards as his running mate, expect to hear this charge often from the GOP camp. We will certainly have more to say about the selection in the Days, weeks and months ahead, but we'd just like to crow a little about our spot-on prediction from a few weeks ago, (too bad we weren't this prescient in Vegas last weekend!). This morning's news also demonstrated yet again that the Right-leaning, Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post doesn't know what the fuck it is reporting about. Nice scoop boys!
UPDATE: Apparently, I can make a 2200% profit on the 25-cents I dropped this morning for the aforementioned erroneous NY Post. Whoo hoo! Thanks Rupert!
Welcome to the party John! After this morning's selection by John Kerry of Southern senator John Edwards as his running mate, expect to hear this charge often from the GOP camp. We will certainly have more to say about the selection in the Days, weeks and months ahead, but we'd just like to crow a little about our spot-on prediction from a few weeks ago, (too bad we weren't this prescient in Vegas last weekend!). This morning's news also demonstrated yet again that the Right-leaning, Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post doesn't know what the fuck it is reporting about. Nice scoop boys!
UPDATE: Apparently, I can make a 2200% profit on the 25-cents I dropped this morning for the aforementioned erroneous NY Post. Whoo hoo! Thanks Rupert!
Comments:
I got one for the other John:
How about "Hanoi John, Billionaire Leftist"?
November 1997: "It is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run. If in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is a time for resolve."
November 1997: "We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent--and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."
November 1998: "Senator Kerry, should it be official U.S. policy that we want to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, not necessarily assassinated, but removed from power?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I believe yes. I believe I've been arguing for that for some time within the
Intelligence committee and elsewhere."
September 2001: "Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable."
December 2001: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
October 2002: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat."
January 2003: "Mr. President, do not rush to war."
May 2003: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
September 2003: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
January 2004: When asked if his vote on the war was POLITICAL; "I thought about that as if I were president, because I knew I was running for president."
January 2004: "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."
March 2004: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
In the course of his presidential campaign John Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and then declared himself an anti-war candidate; said it would be irresponsible to vote against funds for our troops in combat, and then voted against funds for our troops in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only explanation he offered for this contradiction is that he actually voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.
Huh?? Huh??
Hanoi John, the Billionaire leftist, changes his position on every issue as often as people change their socks. Is this the person we want leading our nation in time of war?
Post a Comment
How about "Hanoi John, Billionaire Leftist"?
November 1997: "It is our responsibility not to shy away from those confrontations that really matter in the long run. And this matters in the long run. If in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. I believe this is such a situation, Mr. President. It is a time for resolve."
November 1997: "We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent--and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."
November 1998: "Senator Kerry, should it be official U.S. policy that we want to see Saddam Hussein removed from power, not necessarily assassinated, but removed from power?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I believe yes. I believe I've been arguing for that for some time within the
Intelligence committee and elsewhere."
September 2001: "Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable."
December 2001: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
October 2002: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat."
January 2003: "Mr. President, do not rush to war."
May 2003: "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."
September 2003: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to – to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."
January 2004: When asked if his vote on the war was POLITICAL; "I thought about that as if I were president, because I knew I was running for president."
January 2004: "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."
March 2004: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
In the course of his presidential campaign John Kerry voted for the Iraq War, and then declared himself an anti-war candidate; said it would be irresponsible to vote against funds for our troops in combat, and then voted against funds for our troops in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only explanation he offered for this contradiction is that he actually voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.
Huh?? Huh??
Hanoi John, the Billionaire leftist, changes his position on every issue as often as people change their socks. Is this the person we want leading our nation in time of war?
"
