September 29, 2004
— Ace Only Succeeds in Confusing Poor Diane Sawyer, Which, To Be Fair to the Squishy Senator, Doesn't Sound Like That Difficult a Trick
Son of Nixon, still on sabbatical at an undisclosed location, tipped me to this. The transcript isn't up at ABCNews just yet, but I found this version at Rush Limbaugh's site:
SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?
KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
SAWYER: So it was not worth it?
KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat -- weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection of Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. The president misled the American people, plain and simple, bottom line.
SAWYER: So, if it turns out okay it was worth it, but right now it wasn't worth it?
KERRY: No. It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done.
Okay. Let's put aside the distortions that there was "no connection" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Bush claimed there was an "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.
I guess we also have to put aside the fact that just a month ago he said he'd have voted for the war, even knowing what he does now.
But, like I said, let's just sort of ignore all that for the moment.
What have we learned?
According to John Forbes Kerry of Beacon Hill, it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, depending on the "outcome," in which case it might have been the right thing to do.
Depends on the outcome.
That's what I call a tall drink of nuance.
But in any event you have to elect John Forbes Kerry president, because he has, it seems, a "clear plan" for either getting us out of Iraq or winning the war in Iraq, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day.
Linked by "Shadowy Connections" Update: William offers the many faces of John Kerry.
I think the debates tomorrow will be anticlimactic and neither man will give much in the way of a show. All Kerry has to do is get through the debate without waggin' his finger at W. And all W has to do is manage to get through the debate without falling asleep listening to Kerry.
I would be very surprised if he allows them to bait him into a frustration response. I would also be surprised if Kerry gets through the debate without contradicting something he has previously said.
All in all, I think it will be a bit of a let down for anyone who is expecting fireworks.
Posted by: Jennifer at September 29, 2004 01:18 PM (AH/Dd)
I'm not a "professional" journalist, of course, but maybe a good follow-up question might have been, "That's not at all helpful, Senator, but since we're pretending to be forthright and all, how about answering the real question: Do you think we should have gone to war based on what we knew then?"
Not that his answer would have made sense.
Posted by: George at September 29, 2004 01:44 PM (DiZv6)
Posted by: The Black Republican at September 29, 2004 02:03 PM (QnoKx)
Posted by: Nomorelies at September 29, 2004 02:06 PM (nX0ar)
I agree. They'll both be on their best behavior, and they'll both be a little nervous. It'll be a wash, which will hurt Kerry a bit more than W. If W. ties all three debates, he wins-- but if Kerry can't eke out a victory tomorrow, the media will start spinning "Kerry really needed to differentiate himself tonight, and he failed to do that with his subdued performance."
The good news is, such a critque makes it even likelier that the NEXT debates will have fireworks, as Kerry tries to get more "lively."
I just don't see how the debates will help Kerry, unless Dubya gets a lot of things spectacularly wrong, and Kerry comes across as not only smart but competent-- and empathic. I'm not taking that bet.
BTW, I haven't paid attention to the formats (I know one is a town hall), but there's a live audience for each of them, I'm sure. And that will most likely hurt Kerry-- he's got more of a desire to play to the cheap seats, and all it takes is a bit of Arsenio-style "whoop, whoop" to derail a gentlemanly debate, and turn into a MoveOn rally.
Personally, I can't wait until Tuesday, when we get to watch the Vice President debate the Boy Wonder. I've got a feeling that watching it will be like watching Vader dismantle Luke at the end of ESB, lazy one-handed lightsaber swings and all that jazz.
Or better yet, Cheney may just force-strangle the smile off of Pinocchio's waxy face-- "I find your lack of faith in the American fighting man disturbing."
Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at September 29, 2004 02:26 PM (mrpxK)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 29, 2004 05:04 PM (EGMPU)
It is like going back to MegaMillions with my ticket ang saying:
"Knowing what I know now, it was not worth buying the ticket because it did not win,it was a lemon, give me back my money. However, had it won the prize, it would be worthwhile buying it."
So, next time we buy a ticket, we should keep this in mind and make the decision accordingly.
Sweet, isn't it?
Posted by: Julius at September 29, 2004 06:17 PM (TOKql)
here, but you're almost as funny as Ace.
Oh... Did you see that Michelle Malkin linked him
and said "one of my must-reads every day"?
Posted by: blakjack at September 29, 2004 07:23 PM (s1plL)
Also, by Kerry's "logic", nothing can be perceived as being worth *anything* until the event is over and done with. Can you imagine FDR being asked during WWII if the European War Theatre was "worth it" and he answered, "Well, when it is all over, we shall see if attempting to stop the evil of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and keeping Europe free from totalitarian rule was worth it. I cannot say until such time, however."
Posted by: addison at September 30, 2004 12:38 AM (wiRK6)
Posted by: Windycity at September 30, 2004 04:13 AM (AvjIr)
Posted by: Bohemian Conservative at September 30, 2004 08:25 AM (AaBEz)
SAWYER: So it was not worth it?
KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully.
Where is the flip-flopping? Sorry, he didn't "Stick to his guns"? The difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry is willing to accept and point out that humans, based off of the information that is provided to them, are fallible.
He's not arguing whether we should have gone to war. He's stating that given the information we have now, if he were President, he would not have gone to war. He is using rhetoric to side step the question. The bottom line is he won't state whether or not the war in Iraq was worth it. Why? What is done is done. According to our intelligence in Iraq at that start of the war the United States was conviced that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Bush, going on his gut reaction attacked. Bad move, he didn't even let the inspections pan out before moving in. The man has no idea what he's doing.
According to Bush, Kerry is a flip-flopper. If that is so is Bush not? Let's take a look at Bush:
Bush says he wouldn't go to the UN in regards to Iraq, he claims he doesn't need to.
---Bush then goes to the UN panel and asks for help with Iraq (Bush-flop #1)
Bush originally says he won't support a new Homeland Security Department.
---Bush later (after some firm advice I imagine) says he supports the idea of a new Homeland Security Department. (Bush-flop #2)
Bush says he won't support the 9/11 Commision,
---then he does (Bush-flop #3)
There are so many more changes of position that Bush has taken...I won't waste your time or my own.
Also, comparing Bush to FDR and the European Theatre to Iraq is ubsurd, there are little if any similarities.
Posted by: InDisagreement at September 30, 2004 02:02 PM (1q02Z)
Posted by: a14789632 at December 13, 2011 05:15 AM (MB21u)
62 queries taking 1.1014 seconds, 249 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.