HH Weekend Symposium
HughHewitt.com: "'What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?' "
The answer in question is this: Kerry has claimed that Bush and Rumsfeld forced the retirement of Eric Shinseki after he requested more troops for the invasion of Iraq.
While I've written briefly on Kerry's worldview already, I had argued that, "Kerry's polestar position ... (on issues) ... is merely that he wants to be President." My opinion of his worldview is not altered one iota by this latest gaffe.
But with this particular claim of Kerry's what we need to examine further is, why the f**k does he think he can get away with it? One would think, if it is dissed immediately by the MSM or even factcheck.org, it will rebound to his disadvantage. The blogosphere and beyond will resound with derisive echos of this deception revealed and his "brilliantly run" campaign will stagger yet again. On the face of it, this claim cannot be sustained. But wait, how can the claim/counterclaim be verified.
Reporters and investigators will have to examine military documents, interview those involved, and be paid for their time. Documents involved all come from the post typewriter age, so MS Word willbe able to produce required forgeries because that is the likely source of the documents in the first place. And, after the RatherGate incident, trust in documents is at an all time low. Interviews will also fail us, because Kerry and his "minions" will merely claim that the interviewee has been "gotten to" and pressured. Likewise, admittedly, the Bush faction will claim partisanship on the part of any interview that comes forth to his disadvantage. So it is likely that no investigation will result, after all, no matter the outcome, the other side will call the result into question.
What Kerry was counting on was his large, unpaid advertising wing (also known as the MSM) to come forth parroting his talking points, like here, here, and here (registration required for two of these links, but just copy the link into Google and go from there). They would then overwhelm any voice pointing out that Shinseki's retirement had been announced in advance.
Watch and wait. Kerry was testing the waters. If this lie works, more will follow. He may just be oiling the machinery.
This also adds one more angle to Kerry's confusing position on Iraq. After all, if Shinseki's request was honored, it would have taken longer to get started on the war because of logistical and staffing issues, longer to take Iraq, because of the same logistical issues, and it ultimately would have cost more in dollars and perhaps even lives. While Kerry as candidate, might have wished for that, Kerry as American, damn well shouldn't have. I leave it to the reader as an exercise to guess whether Kerry has reasoned that part out.
The answer in question is this: Kerry has claimed that Bush and Rumsfeld forced the retirement of Eric Shinseki after he requested more troops for the invasion of Iraq.
While I've written briefly on Kerry's worldview already, I had argued that, "Kerry's polestar position ... (on issues) ... is merely that he wants to be President." My opinion of his worldview is not altered one iota by this latest gaffe.
But with this particular claim of Kerry's what we need to examine further is, why the f**k does he think he can get away with it? One would think, if it is dissed immediately by the MSM or even factcheck.org, it will rebound to his disadvantage. The blogosphere and beyond will resound with derisive echos of this deception revealed and his "brilliantly run" campaign will stagger yet again. On the face of it, this claim cannot be sustained. But wait, how can the claim/counterclaim be verified.
Reporters and investigators will have to examine military documents, interview those involved, and be paid for their time. Documents involved all come from the post typewriter age, so MS Word willbe able to produce required forgeries because that is the likely source of the documents in the first place. And, after the RatherGate incident, trust in documents is at an all time low. Interviews will also fail us, because Kerry and his "minions" will merely claim that the interviewee has been "gotten to" and pressured. Likewise, admittedly, the Bush faction will claim partisanship on the part of any interview that comes forth to his disadvantage. So it is likely that no investigation will result, after all, no matter the outcome, the other side will call the result into question.
What Kerry was counting on was his large, unpaid advertising wing (also known as the MSM) to come forth parroting his talking points, like here, here, and here (registration required for two of these links, but just copy the link into Google and go from there). They would then overwhelm any voice pointing out that Shinseki's retirement had been announced in advance.
Watch and wait. Kerry was testing the waters. If this lie works, more will follow. He may just be oiling the machinery.
This also adds one more angle to Kerry's confusing position on Iraq. After all, if Shinseki's request was honored, it would have taken longer to get started on the war because of logistical and staffing issues, longer to take Iraq, because of the same logistical issues, and it ultimately would have cost more in dollars and perhaps even lives. While Kerry as candidate, might have wished for that, Kerry as American, damn well shouldn't have. I leave it to the reader as an exercise to guess whether Kerry has reasoned that part out.
posted by Mark at 10/08/2004 07:16:00 PM
<< Home