"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Imus interviews John Kerry

>> Thursday, September 16, 2004

This proved to be quite interesting. Transcript of interview But there were a few points I wonder if Kerry realizes he made- or unmade.

Kerry: We've lost 1.6 million jobs

Well, look at our post from just the other day: Jobs Report
Kerry uses this line as a scare tactic. Our unemployment rate is the same as it was when Clinton was reelected, but at that time it was seen as positive. Spin is everything.

Kerry: this president sent people to war without the state-of-the-art equipment
Imus: They can't get this equipment for these troops if people like you won't vote for the funding though.
Kerry: We did vote for the funding. We voted for the funding. I voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of our country. And I voted— this is long after the war, that $87 billion vote.

Ummm, yeah. "I voted for the $87 million before I voted against it" So now he voted for it? Or against it? Or is he saying that, after the war began, after we sent troops into Iraq he finally decided they might need equipment? What is the man saying? Does he even know?

Imus: Back to the war on terror for a second. There hasn't been an attack in this country since September 11, 2001, three years. Have we just been lucky? Who gets the credit for that? Is there any credit due anybody?
Kerry: Well, I think that the FBI and the CIA are doing a better job than they were doing, and I give them credit for that.

Well, certainly, let's blame Bush for Sept. 11, even though he had been in office only 8 months and Clinton had 8 years and 3 silver platters to capture Bin Laden. But I digress:

Kerry: Terror is up around the world over the course of the last year or two

And isn't it funny that it's not up in the US? So we must be keeping them off our soil. This is bad? Onward:

Kerry: The president has alienated so many people that they're just sitting on the sidelines, not even living up to the resolution of the U.N. that they voted for. And the president doesn't even seem capable of holding them accountable to that.

Seriously, how many countries are in Iraq, fighting terror or providing aid? I know we aren't there alone. And as for the UN resolution; why is the president suddenly in charge of holding them accountable? Shouldn't the UN be doing that? First we need to bow to the UN and now the president needs to run it? Which way does Kerry want it?

Oh, here's what he plans to do:
Kerry: But I would immediately call a summit meeting of the European community. They haven't lived up to the obligations of their own resolution that they passed at the U.N.

Yep, I bet that would make everything right in the world.

Kerry: a new president who has credibility with the foreign leaders

So, because he's new he will automatically have credibility? I believe it takes time to earn credibility.

And on to Bush's dad and a big misstatement:

Kerry: Well, his dad was the one who recommended military cuts back then, and Dick Cheney was the vice president of the United States, who recommended those military cuts back then.

Really? Cheney was VP under Bush senior? How did I miss that?

And on Abu Garib and Kerry's "atrocities":

IMUS: Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And my question, Senator Kerry, is, is there a difference between what happened in your case in Vietnam and what happened at Abu Ghraib, in that both were acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

KERRY: There is a difference.

IMUS: What is it?

KERRY: There is a difference. What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords. We didn't learn that until we came home. I didn't know any of that while I was there. I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers.

So now he says that he didn't commit atrocities? He didn't know about them until he came home? Cutting off heads isn't a clue? What?

And back to the war in Iraq:

IMUS: Well, yes, he did. Did you read Richard Cohen in yesterday's Washington Post?

KERRY: I did not.

IMUS: He wrote that in voting to authorize this war in Iraq that we've been talking about this morning -- this is Richard Cohen, don't get hysterical, not that you would but -- unlike Senator Kennedy, you chose a supposedly safe and overly nuanced route that in Mr. Cohen's view has left you, Senator Kerry, tongue-tied.

KERRY: Well, I disagree.

IMUS: Well, he's urging you to admit the war was a mistake and then start attacking these people. Why can't you do that?

KERRY: But I do. That's exactly what I am doing. I think the war -- I've said it a hundred times, I think it was a huge mistake for the president to go to war the way he did. I've said that a dozen times. I mean, the fact is that I...

IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?

KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The president distorted that and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

So Kerry says that he is admitting the war in Iraq is a mistake. But then he says that voting for the war was the right vote. I agree with Richard Cohen, this has Kerry tongue tied. How does he not choke?

3 comments:

Doug Halsted 9:46 AM  

Why didn't Imus point out to Kerry, that yes in fact he did vote against the supplimental funds for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Looking at the employment numbers:
January 2001 numbers indicate that 135,999,000 people were employed at an average rate of $14.02.

August 2004 numbers indicate that there are 139,681,000 people currently employed making an average $15.77.

By my calculator 3,682,000 more people are working now than in January 2001.

How can an additional 3.7 million new people in the job market be characterized as a job loss?

Inflation is almost non-existant. How can a $1.75 increase in average wages be considered a loss?

Doug Halsted 9:53 AM  

Oooops, the January 2001 numbers are really hereGo to www.bls.gov for more summaries.
Go here for the full listing of employment summaries

Doug Halsted 11:10 PM  

More from Ipse Dixit

Happy to be at Home 1 Powered By Ringsurf
Proud Mommy Webring
© WebRing Inc.
Proud Mommy Webring
<< Prev | Ring Hub | Join | Rate| Next >>

WidgetBox Network

  © Blogger templates Shiny by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP