Spin. He said "and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons"
What's the proof to the world? Could be anything. What if Saddam gassed his own people and then invaded Kuwait. Then the UN and most countries in the world said let�s go to war to liberate Kuwait? Kerry voted against that war. So what do you think he considers proof? --- Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:01 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Bin Laden shows his ugly face > > > I heard what he said clearly. You're trying to > spin it > > but it won't work. > > How could the statement, in full context, mean what > you intimate it means? > How does "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" imply that world permission is > required? > > The sentence structure is clear that "your doing" > something and that > although you're doing it you "can prove" to others > that it's the right > course of action. > > However, at the very least, the comment is > definitely open to > interpretation. So, when in doubt, you ask the > person that said it: and > Kerry has repeatedly stated clearly that he would > not give another country > veto authority over our security. > > For the Bush campaign to hear a clarifying > explanation and still claim in > speeches and attack ads that a "global test" (with > the phrase taken > completely out of context) is the "Kerry Doctrine" > is simply disingenuous. > > Spinsanity.com said of the issue: > > "Clearly, Kerry meant that a President must be able > to demonstrate to the > world that the preemptive war is being waged for > legitimate reasons, not > that foreign governments must provide 'permission.'" > > "In fact, Kerry said the exact opposite at another > point in the debate. In > his very first answer of the night, the Democratic > candidate said, 'I'll > never give a veto to any country over our > security.'" > > And later: > > "Journalists should debunk this misleading attack, > which only distracts from > the substantive issues debated by the candidates." > > Both candidates should be allowed the grace to > clarify their positions on > issues when they've used language that could be > misinterpreted. I greatly > respect a candidate that is able to accept a > clarification from the opponent > and let the matter drop despite the potential > political advantage of > misrepresentation... Bush has clearly been unable to > do so in this case. > > Should we take everything Bush says word for word, > despite later > clarifications? Remember that he said with > conviction that "we will NOT > have an all volunteer army" (of course shortly > thereafter, at the prompting > of his audience, he clarified his position to be > exactly the opposite). > > Bush himself has intimated, charmingly, at times > that he's not the best > person with the English language. Perhaps semantics > is not an area that the > Bush campaign should be battling on. > > Jim Davis _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=17 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:133518 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
