HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 13, 2004 Kerry opened his speech, saluting, at the DNC convention with “I’m John Kerry, reporting for duty.” Considering prior to that speech, Mr. Kerry had [almost] said he was against the war in Iraq (due to the polls…he’d changed his mind to be almost for it), it was sort of a surprise. However, still his base (the Bush-hating crowd) cheered wildly; that base that is anti-war and anti-American. But, these are the ABB folks and anyone would do…no matter what he said. Why didn’t he just say “I’m John Kerry and I’m not George W. Bush”? He would probably have gotten as big a reaction, if not bigger, from his base. I’m guessing that one of the problems Mr. Kerry had, in following this course of action, was that he would eventually say that he was “Bush Kerry style” or “Nuanced Bush” (the democrats and the mainstream press [same thing] currently love that word…”nuanced” not Bush). With Mr. Kerry’s response to President Bush’s legitimate challenge, regarding whether or not Kerry would have voted for the Iraq war if he “knew what he knows now” about the WMDs, Kerry responded from Arizona: "Yes, I would have voted for that authority, but I would have used that authority to do things very differently." Of note, his comments changed and were elaborated upon, by the time the Boston Globe picked up the story. Was Mr. Kerry “re- explaining” himself…again? Or, is he still back at square one where we have to define his use of the words “authority”? What did he mean by “do things very differently”? Is that, again, bringing in the very-corrupt UN? Does Mr Kerry mean bringing in France and Germany (who have already said that even if their Presidential choice-Kerry-is elected they still won’t send troops to Iraq)? Or is it Kerry’s new stated stance that he would fight the war “more sensitively”? Al-Qaeda has to have fallen over with multiple full-gut laughs at that statement. It sounds, to me, that Mr. Kerry is again being as totally nebulous as is humanly possible in order to appease his anarchistic/anti-American/anti-war (unless its waged against the US) base, more moderate democrats and (apparently) the terrorists. Did Mr. Kerry ever study the Neville Chamberlain debacle in school? Sensitivity (AKA “appeasement”) leads not only to even more fighting but, to total failure! Suffice it to say, Mr. Kerry’s studies into historical facts and truth are sorely lacking. In regards to John Kerry switching positions, it has now become a daily event. Democrats have taken to explaining his every word, as a normal course of action. On Hannity & Colmes, last night, Alan Colmes tried to explain Kerry’s statements by saying things Alan’s candidate never said. Sounds like the Kerry people have all been inducted into Kerry’s “Team Spin”. I guess we can now expect to have hourly explanations, from the democrats, of “what Kerry REALLY meant to say”. Should Mr. Kerry make it to the White House (I’m saying my prayers that he won’t), will there be a new Cabinet position? Could it be “Secretary in charge of Explanations of Presidential Statements”? Could there even be a second one entitled “Terrorist Appeasement Coordinator”? ------------ About the author: Sher Zieve has a degree in Journalism, appeared on the CBS program "Mysteries of the Millenium", has been included in "Who's Who in the West", "Who's Who in the US" and "Who's Who in Entertainment". Ms. Zieve is the author of "The Scattering-Book 1 of Earthseed" and her website is: www.e-kard.com/earthseed. Email: earthseed@iwon.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
