Kerry-Edwards Rhetoric Decoder Bursts into
Flames After Friday Night's Debate
By Easton Weston
Friday night turned out to be a rough slog for Spolitics’ KERFU
machine as Senator Kerry proved even more enigmatic than usual.
Even though the KERFU was down for a day and a half after it
burst into flames trying to decipher Kerry's foreign policy,
Spolitics was able to wrangle a little meaning out of Kerry’s
rhetoric.
1. Senator Kerry's wishy-washiness depends on President Bush's
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Therefore, Bush
spends his time editing together clips of Kerry taking opposite
sides of several issues. Since the President “can't say he left no
child behind” and television commercials are expensive, it is the
clips that are deceptive and not John Kerry.
2. John Kerry has “always believed Saddam Hussein was a
threat.” He believed it in 1998 and wanted to give President Clinton
the authority to use force to hold Saddam accountable. Clinton
disappointed Kerry when he only bombed Iraq, which does not
constitute “force.” Then, after five years had passed -- and still
Saddam had not been held accountable -- Bush “rushed to war.”
Now Iran is a threat because the President has “been preoccupied
with Iraq where there wasn’t a threat.” This is what the Senator
has always said except when he was saying other things when
describing this very nuanced threat that has both always, and
never, existed.
3. Despite the fact that Senator Kerry “always believed Saddam
Hussein was a threat,” he did not authorize the first President Bush
to use force against the dictator after he invaded Kuwait -- even
though the President had built a strong coalition -- because “life is
not that simple” and because there was no exception in the war
resolution for Saddam Hussein’s health.
4. President Bush made the wrong choice when he did not listen
to General Shinseki’s suggestion that they would need “several
hundred thousand troops to win the peace” because it is the
“military’s job to win the war but it is the President’s job to win
the peace” and the president should only rely on the generals to
execute the “military component of the strategy.” Therefore,
because it is the President’s job to win the peace, and not the
military’s, President Bush should have followed General Shinseki’s
plan to win the peace and sent hundreds of thousands more troops
to Iraq for when after the war was over, even though the true war
on terrorism was in Afghanistan and there were not enough troops
there and too many in Iraq.
5. Kerry spoke with the members of the Security Council and was
convinced they were serious about holding Saddam Hussein
accountable for weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, even
though they voted against a second resolution to hold Saddam
accountable for WMD, Bush was stubborn and wrong to
conclude the vote meant they did not want to hold Hussein
accountable. Clearly, they were just voting against it before they
were going to vote for it. Bush should have waited for this to
occur, which would have happened after Howard Dean became
the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Then, France
would have changed their mind about the resolution because they
want Kerry to “beat this guy” Bush.
6. President Bush took his eye off “the ball” which is clearly in
Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and Russia. The Duelfer report has
shown us that “the ball” was not in Iraq. And even though they
had “the ball” once and wanted another ball real soon, that was no
reason to waste $200 million that could have been better spent
inspecting all the cargo containers that enter our ports, because
they may have the balls in them, too.
Flames After Friday Night's Debate
By Easton Weston
Friday night turned out to be a rough slog for Spolitics’ KERFU
machine as Senator Kerry proved even more enigmatic than usual.
Even though the KERFU was down for a day and a half after it
burst into flames trying to decipher Kerry's foreign policy,
Spolitics was able to wrangle a little meaning out of Kerry’s
rhetoric.
1. Senator Kerry's wishy-washiness depends on President Bush's
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Therefore, Bush
spends his time editing together clips of Kerry taking opposite
sides of several issues. Since the President “can't say he left no
child behind” and television commercials are expensive, it is the
clips that are deceptive and not John Kerry.
2. John Kerry has “always believed Saddam Hussein was a
threat.” He believed it in 1998 and wanted to give President Clinton
the authority to use force to hold Saddam accountable. Clinton
disappointed Kerry when he only bombed Iraq, which does not
constitute “force.” Then, after five years had passed -- and still
Saddam had not been held accountable -- Bush “rushed to war.”
Now Iran is a threat because the President has “been preoccupied
with Iraq where there wasn’t a threat.” This is what the Senator
has always said except when he was saying other things when
describing this very nuanced threat that has both always, and
never, existed.
3. Despite the fact that Senator Kerry “always believed Saddam
Hussein was a threat,” he did not authorize the first President Bush
to use force against the dictator after he invaded Kuwait -- even
though the President had built a strong coalition -- because “life is
not that simple” and because there was no exception in the war
resolution for Saddam Hussein’s health.
4. President Bush made the wrong choice when he did not listen
to General Shinseki’s suggestion that they would need “several
hundred thousand troops to win the peace” because it is the
“military’s job to win the war but it is the President’s job to win
the peace” and the president should only rely on the generals to
execute the “military component of the strategy.” Therefore,
because it is the President’s job to win the peace, and not the
military’s, President Bush should have followed General Shinseki’s
plan to win the peace and sent hundreds of thousands more troops
to Iraq for when after the war was over, even though the true war
on terrorism was in Afghanistan and there were not enough troops
there and too many in Iraq.
5. Kerry spoke with the members of the Security Council and was
convinced they were serious about holding Saddam Hussein
accountable for weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, even
though they voted against a second resolution to hold Saddam
accountable for WMD, Bush was stubborn and wrong to
conclude the vote meant they did not want to hold Hussein
accountable. Clearly, they were just voting against it before they
were going to vote for it. Bush should have waited for this to
occur, which would have happened after Howard Dean became
the front runner for the Democratic nomination. Then, France
would have changed their mind about the resolution because they
want Kerry to “beat this guy” Bush.
6. President Bush took his eye off “the ball” which is clearly in
Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and Russia. The Duelfer report has
shown us that “the ball” was not in Iraq. And even though they
had “the ball” once and wanted another ball real soon, that was no
reason to waste $200 million that could have been better spent
inspecting all the cargo containers that enter our ports, because
they may have the balls in them, too.
| The stories on Spolitics.com are made up for entertainment purposes. Spolitics maintains that nothing on this site is accurate. Anything that happens to be accurate is purely accidental, coincidental or both and Spolitics will fire the writer responsible. Copyright © 2004 Spolitics.com. All Rights Reserved. |