« Iran Rejects Kerry Nuclear Proposal | Home | The Bush Doctrine vs. The Kerry Doctrine »
New Kerry Ad Misrepresents Kerry’s Own Words in the Debate
By Matt Margolis | October 3, 2004
The first debate is over, and while no one still knows what Kerry’s Iraq Plan is, he’s decided to run an ad that declares he won the debate. This rather pompous ad also accuses Bush of lying.
Narrator: “George Bush lost the debate. Now he’s lying about it. This is what you heard John Kerry really say:
John Kerry: “The president always has the right for pre-emptive strike.”
John Kerry: “I will hunt and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.”
This ad is clearly trying to neutralize the “global test” gaffe John Kerry made at the debate by cherry-picking Kerry’s own words to to make them sound more presidential and stronger on national security.
Let’s look at the first quote noted by the Kerry campaign in its full context (the cherry-picked portions used in the Kerry ad are underlined):
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
The Kerry campaign without a doubt wants to pretend like John Kerry never made the “global test” gaffe. That comment alone will be a serious liability for the Kerry campaign, and they know it, so they’ve chosen to accuse Bush of lying about it.
Now for the second quote in context:
I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.
But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
John Kerry has implied hear that resources were diverted from Afghanistan and Iraq and that the 9/11 Commission said there was connection between Iraq an al Qaeda.
Both General Tommy Franks (who planned both wars) and Lt. General Michael DeLong have said that Kerry’s suggestion that resources from Afghanistan were diverted to are Iraq are completely false.
As far as Kerry’s claim that the 9-11 Commission determined that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, that’s also not true, and we went over that extensively here at Blogs For Bush. Tom Kean has said there were contacts… Lee Hamilton has blasted the media for misrepresenting their findings… It was found at least one of Saddams Fedayeen was “a very prominent member of al Qaida”… and that bin Laden sought support from terror groups in a variety of countries (including Iraq) to build a large Islamic army…
In fact, I highly recommend the Kerry campaign actually read the 9/11 Commission Report.
All that being said, the Kerry campaign can run from Kerry’s own words… but they can’t hide from them. Kerry shouldn’t have wasted money producing and running a pretentious and misleading ad on his words and instead run one that actually answers the question “What is your plan for Iraq?”
Topics: John Kerry Watch |
Related Posts:
October 5th, 2004 at 5:58 pm
I have more questions than comments. I see facts on this site, I hear what seem to be facts on TV. I often have questions as to why the George Bush Campaign doesn’t use these facts. Is this a site I can see of anyone knows why?
GW
October 5th, 2004 at 8:50 pm
Because the facts will doom the Bush campaign. He can’t run on his past record and facts, because it doesn’t make him look good. The economy sucks, people are getting killed like crazy in Iraq…That’s why he says 1) being president is hard work 2) Kerry flip-flops. That’s all he has!
So…that’s why the Bush campaign does not use facts…
October 7th, 2004 at 3:22 pm
Well, gee, marshall, the unemployment rate is lower than it was when Clinton ran on “his” amazingly low unemployment rate, back in ‘96. Incomes are up, jobs are recovering—funny way for the economy to “suck”. ‘less you use DemSpeak.
Econ 101: Bad things hurt the economy. Things like 9/11. Even more recently, for those of you who wipe the memory banks clean every couple of weeks to make room for talking points, we have had thousands of jobs lost due to the hurricanes in Florida.
Jobs lost is not the only economic indicator. Millions of other jobs have been created, the economy is not only growing but it is growing in a sane, steady, fashion, unlike the fake dot-com boom that helped Mr. Clinton lay claim to creating a strong economy.
But to answer your question, Gary—a lot of us wonder why the Republicans do such a poor job of dealing with the mulititude of misstatements thrown out by the Dems on a regular basis. It is frustrating. But it is like being shot at by a shotgun—there are just so many of them, it is hard to know where to start, and impossible to keep up. We saw Mr. Cheney trying to deal with this the other night, repeatedly commenting that there were so many inaccuracies (to be generous) he didn’t know where to start, or saying that 90 seconds was not nearly long enough to deal with them.
In years of trying to figure out the differences between the right and the left, one conclusion I’ve reached can be summed up in the word Shame. A conservative would be ashamed to be caught in a lie, therefore would not tend to lie for fear of being caught in the lie, and, therefore, embarrassed. A liberal, unfettered by such concerns, will toss out lie after lie after lie, in such volume that it is impossible to keep up—-and, when caught in a lie, will respond by trying to shore up his lies with more lies. Just as crime would run rampant if there was no fear of punishment, lying runs rampant in the Democratic Party because the only thing they fear is loss of power, and they have proof that the loyalists don’t care how they try to keep it.
You want an example? In the debate, Kerry said he has never used the word “lie” about George Bush. Even using a Clintonesque parsing of the idea, by claiming that all the people representing the party use the word constantly but he, Kerry, does not, it is still laughable. He’s said it, several times, and we all know it. But there is the chance that somewhere out there is someone who has not heard any political debate, who might believe him.
But the thing is, belief is not a prerequisite for the lying—they say what they think they have to say, at that point in time, to deal with whatever it is they think they have to deal with. Turn the page, and that moment is history—it is gone, it doesn’t exist, we are on a new page, and on that page they say whatever they have to say at THAT moment in time. It’s as much a lack of continuity as it is lying—no statement has to connect with, or relate to, any other statement. No one can keep up with that kind of tap-dancing, and anyone who tries would be so consumed by the effort that the work of getting out the Republican message would have to, by default, fall by the wayside.
Which is probably the idea. Throw so much garbage out there, the other side can either devote all its time to dealing with it, leaving no time for anything else, or they can ignore it, giving the left the opportunity to point out that it was not disputed, therefore it must be right. Clever, yes. Devious, yes. But indicative of an inner rot that shows through more and more.
October 7th, 2004 at 10:18 pm
“where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”
Matt, what on earth is the matter with this? All this means is that if you go to war, the reasons you give for going to war have to be TRUE. That’s it. If you give legitimate reasons, and you’re telling the truth, you pass the “global test.” Kerry doesn’t say the world has to accept what we tell them; he just said we have to be able to prove our reasons are legitimate. And the reasons for the war AREN’T enough for you, because you’re not in the Army and not in Iraq. If you believe in the war, why aren’t you fighting it? Hypocrisy? Cowardice? Both?
October 9th, 2004 at 1:45 am
Lowell,
Are against the war in Iraq? Why aren’t you over there being a Human Shield? Hypocrisy? Cowardice? Both?
Oh, BTW, I’m retired Army. Yes, I was there. I support this war. A democratic government in Iraq is a great strategic victory in the WOT.