MSNBC's Watkins described Clinton's Iran letter as "shades of John Kerry"
On the October 22 edition of MSNBC Live, while discussing a letter Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) recently sent to Iowa Democrats explaining her support for an amendment that designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "foreign terrorist organization," Republican strategist and MSNBC analyst Joe Watkins asserted that "what she did now by sending out this letter was almost sound shades of John Kerry by saying, 'I was actually against it before I voted for it.' That's what she said in the letter." In fact, Clinton stated in the letter that she originally opposed the measure "because it had language that President Bush could have used to justify military action against Iran," and supported it only after "Senate Democrats reached across party lines to remove those sections."
On September 20, Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) submitted into the Congressional Record the original version of the amendment, which contained the following language:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies[.]
These paragraphs were subsequently removed from the final version of the amendment before Clinton voted for its passage on September 26. Prior to the vote, Lieberman said:
LIEBERMAN: Because some of our colleagues thought paragraphs 3 and 4 of the sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran, Senator Kyl and I have struck them from the amendment. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.
During a March 2004 campaign appearance, then-Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was asked about his vote against an $87 billion supplemental appropriation for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kerry responded, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," and President Bush's re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee subsequently used this answer to characterize Kerry as a "flip-flopper." Kerry had co-sponsored and supported an amendment to the supplemental appropriation bill which provided the $87 billion but paid for it by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts. After the amendment failed on a procedural vote, Kerry voted against the supplemental appropriation. Kerry discussed his vote during a September 29, 2004, interview on ABC's Good Morning America:
DIANE SAWYER (co-host): The one thing the Bush administration has played more than any probably, which is, I voted against the $87 billion after I voted for it.
KERRY [video clip]: I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.
SAWYER: And they say this is classic about why you're --
KERRY: No, that's not classic at all. It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly. But it reflects the truth of the position, which is I thought to have the wealthiest people in America share the burden of paying for that war. It was a protest. Sometimes you have to stand up and be counted and that's what I did.
From Clinton's letter to Iowa Democrats:
Several weeks ago, I voted with 75 other Senators for a sense of the Senate resolution to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Let me tell you why.
I was in the Senate that day and was about to vote "no" on this legislation because it had language that President Bush could have used to justify military action against Iran. Working together, Senate Democrats reached across party lines to remove those sections. Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table.
From the 2 pm ET hour of the October 22 edition of MSNBC Live:
MONICA NOVOTNY (anchor): Moving on to politics, Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals continue to criticize her for her recent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. They're saying that her vote essentially gives President Bush a green light to attack Iran. Clinton denies that, and over the weekend she even sent a letter to supporters explaining the vote, saying, quote, "Let me be clear on Iran -- I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full congressional approval." Joe Watkins is a Republican strategist and an MSNBC analyst, and David Brown is a Democratic strategist. Good to talk to you both.
WATKINS: Good to talk to you too, Monica.
NOVOTNY: All right, Joe, I'll start with you. Why would Hillary Clinton send out this letter now?
WATKINS: Well, of course she wants to appeal to her base in the Democratic Party and certainly those on the left. She really doesn't have to apologize for this, Monica. I mean, what she did was the right thing. She said she agreed with the president and with many others around the world that the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is a terrorist organization. And that's true and correct. But what she did now by sending out this letter was almost sound shades of John Kerry by saying, "I was actually against it before I voted for it." That's what she said in the letter.
I actually agree with the analyst here. Clinton is trying to have her neocon cake and eat it too while winning votes from liberals. She is taking a lot of $ from defense contractors and refuses to give a timeline for an iraq withdrawl or pledge to remove our troops immediately if elected. Clinton is part of the problem not part of the solution.
She didn't expect that her vote would be highlighted and now she has to backpedal to save face. Basically we've labeled Iran's army terrorists so as to give Bush cover for attacking Iran. Sen. Webb had it right by voting against this.
I agree with you that her position on Iran is questionable, but what is it with righties that make them unable to see that people can change their position to reflect changing situations. This is not "flip-flopping". Why do they believe that once a statement is made, one must be wedded to it for all time. bush (lowercase intentional) is a perfect example of the seemingly ideal politician in their eyes. However, he is not really standing on principle, he is just rigid and inflexible. It's plain old stubborn pig-headedness, and he is unable to admit a mistake, and too proud to let anyone help him out of it.
because politicians do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. romney is a huuuge flip flopper and sounds like a used car salesman when he speaks. are you telling me that you think he really "evolved" like he said he did and it just isnt that he is changing his views because his voting bloc has changed?
google clinton defense donations. clinton is for the war on iran before she is against it. the iranian army isnt terrorists but bush needs it labeled as such to win the PR game with the bushbots.
No, I'm referring to John Kerry's (in)famous statement. He stepped on it by phrasing it the way he did, because it played right into their evil little hands, but it was clear to me what he meant. The bill he was "for", was changed in a way that made it completely unacceptable, then he was "against" it.
Hillary made a similar comment about the Iran resolution (in reverse), but by comparing it to Kerry's comments, they are running the exact same play. To them, she isn't "evolving", she is "flip-flopping". Whether you agree with her or not, their portrayal is unfair and dishonest.
i think we all understand that, but the problem is that people who want to believe the simplified rush limbaugh version of it (ooo john kerry flip flopper) will take it that way and so will people hearing it for the first time without knowing the context.
i actually think it should be a crime to lie and take things out of context in order to FOOL people into voting a certain way. i know that is an extreme view but i think that if you disseminate a lie, you have to give equal airtime to correcting that lie if it is found out (and confirmed) that you did lie by a watchdog group. this is why we keep ending up with crappy presidents and why good people like paul and kucinich and gravel have 0 airtime.
we get preselected candidates and are fed propaganda and all the average/low intelligence people dont know any better.
You've just described the basis of "The Fairness Doctrine".
I found your statement about Romney being a flip flopper interesting. This article shows him trying to say others do it too!
"I agree with you that her position on Iran is questionable, but what is it with righties that make them unable to see that people can change their position to reflect changing situations."
How did the situation changed during the past month?
That was answered IN the article. What changed was specific phrasing having to do with giving Bush the go ahead to move militarily against Iran being removed.
In fact, Clinton stated in the letter that she originally opposed the measure "because it had language that President Bush could have used to justify military action against Iran," and supported it only after "Senate Democrats reached across party lines to remove those sections."
And you buy that? Are you that gullible?
I have no reason not to believe it. You have evidence its not true? Amazing mind reading powers? Your I Ching. Perhaps your Ouiji board? It makes sense to me. Look, I dont like Hillary, I never have but there isnt any reason not to believe what she said its a reasonable explanation.
It seems pretty simple. End the occupation of Iraq and Iran is no longer a concern for U.S. soldiers.
Get a history book.
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps killed 241 Marines 20 years BEFORE we were in Iraq.
I dont need a history book I remember. Marines IN a war zone with the USS New Jersey offshore in Lebanese waters shelling the Shouf Mountains. I hate to see Americans killed as much as anyone but these were valid military targets NOT terrorism. We shouldnt have sent soldiers to Lebanon to support Israels invasion of that country. When we did they became valid targets. Its silly to go to a country and kill their people then snivel that they are killing us back.
SOLON:
You just confirmed my belief that you need a good history book. The U.S. was not in Lebanon to support the Israelis. And if you think the Marine barracks was a legitimate military target, then you're only confirmed my contention that most of you Media Matters myrmidons are against our military.
I dont need a history book YOU need a brain. Your stupidity is appalling. IF we werent there supporting Israel exactly WHY was the USS New Jersey shelling the Shouf mountains, a stronghold of the Druze militia? Why are you so proud of parading your ignorance? You are stupid komakid. Those of us who arent know things OTHER than what Rush Limbaugh has told us. Moron.
They were not valid military targets. They were not engaged in offensive actions which aided Isreal. They were there as part of a multinational peace keeping force, which was to oversee the withdrawel of the PLO. It is a rather agreed upon position that they were targeted because of our support of Iraq and were subsequently killed by a suicide bombing. There deaths were a result of a terrorist suicide bombing done by a terrorist organization. I am going on memory here but wasn't the shelling you speak of done after the bombing? If not, it matters little, really. The fact remains that those marines were not an offensive force and their role as a peacekeeping force invalidates the idea of them being valid military targets.
Thats actually a good point. They were NOT supposed to be involved in the actual warfare. However NO the USS New Jersey began shelling the Shouf mountains of Lebanon with 2700 lb shells, called flying Volkswagons of Sept 19, 1983 (I remembered it was before but I looked it up to be sure) and the barracks bombing took place Oct 23. So it is really hard to blame the group that became a force determined to run Israel out of Lebanon that they didnt see the distinction. They WERE armed America soldiers, in a war zone, WHILE an American warship was shelling Lebanon. I hate to see Americans killed as much as anyone but I think it a real stretch see this as terrorism.
KOZAKID:
It is obvious to all that you have no knowledge or appreciation of history, and instead have formed your opinions based on some sort of ill-informed nationalistic "pride", bolstered by ideological rightwing propaganda.
Today's NeoCon would be brutally critical of Ronald Reagan for his "CUT AND RUN" out of Beirut following the bombing deaths of over 200 Marines we had stationed there. But it was a complicated and "untenable" situation, not the black and white, with us or against us, simplistic world the NeoCons would have us accept.
To further your education (hope springs eternal), here is a brief account of events transpiring at that time. I hope you choose to become educated instead of remaining embarrasingly ignorant, and I also hope your brain does not explode.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_198x_idf_course.php
I was in the Marines at the time, so I don't need a history lesson from a couple of moonbats who never wore a uniform.
The Marines were in Lebanon as a multi-nation peacekeeping force with the mission to stabilize Lebanon. We were not there to side with Israel.
On this anniversary of the bombing of the Marine barracks, it is extremely distasteful to say that 241 Marines and Navy corpsmen who were sleeping were legitimate military targets. However, this is the type of lunacy we have come to expect from the Media Matters myrmidons.
You really hate liberals don't you? Probably would feel pretty good to have us eliminated, wouldn't it?
I have to admit I have little respect for liberals who say the Marines murdered in Beirut were legitimate military targets.
So, it would then be OK by you to eliminate liberals? I mean, of course, just the liberals who disagree with your vision of true patriotism.
What? No Response, koz?
Figures.
I think your non-response has exposed you as a phony patriot. It has exposed you as one who claims to love our rights and freedoms as Americans, but has no problem with silencing the free expression thereof, with violence if need be, for those of whom with which you have a difference of opinion.
That makes us even. I have NO respect for mindless marching morons who repeat hiveming propagand as IF it were true and deny basic facts.
Of course you dont need a history book. You have the Oxymoron to tell you what to believe. Yes, they werent supposed to be engaged in the battle. Its delusionary for you to claim we were NOT supporting Israel for the same reason its hard to blame the group that bombed out barracks to make this subtle distinction that is the USS NEW JERSEY WAS CURRENTLY SHELLING THE SHOUF MOUNTAINS just outside Beiruit.
Actually, it has been the left (most notably Richard Clarke in "Against All Enemies") that is now critical of Reagan pulling the Marines out of Beirut. Of course, they ignore what happened with the USS Harlan and Black Hawk Down in 1993, and Clinton's failure to retaliate against al Qaeda after the USS Cole was bombed. (Team Clinton claims it could not retaliate because it had not yet confirmed al Qaeda's involvement. However, there was no statute of limitations on concerning retaliation for al Qaeda's bombings of our embassies in August 1998. The Clinton administration refused to retaliate because it would have exposed the illusion of the "peace" portion of Al Gore's "peace and prosperity" mantra. The "prosperity" illusion was exposed with the Clinton-Gore recession.)
Gee, another Clinton reference to prove what again? Why stop there, heck, bring up the bay of pigs. How about WW1?
As a former marine, I recall how lots of scuttlebut gets blown out of proportion and taken for truth all the time. "Peace keeping force", "Military Advisors", "Observers", you can call them whatever you want but if you're under the impression that all those marines did was sit on their butts watching checkpoints then I've got a bridge in London I'd like to sell ya.
diane sawyer blamed the bush administration for playing up "i voted for it before i voted against it"? geez, how about all the little bush helpers in the media? they played it as much as the republicans, without pointing out the context. which was that every senator did the same thing. it was two versions of the same bill, except one was paid for with a tax on the highest incomes.
I hate these stupid amendments that are nothing but rhetoric. Iran's national guard is a part of their army. Why can't they exist? Maybe Bush wouldn't mind if they considered our army terrorists then?
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps killed 241 Marines 24 years ago this week. It is a terrorist organization.
What were the marines doing at the time?
Sleeping in their barracks.
No, I mean what were they doing there? Why were they in the area?
If they were there as part of a military operation, then sad as it may be, they were valid military targets and the rules of engagement apply.
Terrorists are terrorists because they target civilians and not the military. If all you have to do to be labeled a terrorist is kill some marines, then we need to re-examine pretty much every military operation for the last 200 years.
When the Japanese were shooting at our soldiers in the Pacific Theater during WWII, were they terrorists or just an opposing army?
The truth is that YOU and your WINGNUT buddies are salivating at the thought of war with Iran. It gives you a rise in your Levis. So you're working backwards from that position, entirely subjectively, in search of any justification you can possibly find.
Remember, 20 years ago, Reagan and Ollie North LOVED Iran (and Saddam, for that matter). Gave them weapons and military intelligence thinking that if they kept fighting each other, they would be too busy to "go commie".
So, as others have pointed out here, you THINK you know what you're talking about, but you really don't. History is not on your side.
You're a complete moron.
Golly, I never looked at it that way before. I think that pretty much clears up the issue, and reasonably removes the necessity for future debate on it.
Wicked analytical dismantling, dude! Nice job!
Sure from someone stupider than the hair on a barbershop floor. You are a bone ignorant moron and that is being kind. I think you would need to gain a few dozen IQ points to even QUALIFY as being a moron.
They were not valid military targets. They were there to oversee the withdrawel of the PLO as part of a multi-national peace keeping force. They were not engaged in offensive military actions which would aide the Isreali invasion of Lebanon. They were killed by a suicide bombing detonated by two people who were part of a terrorist organization. It was a terrorist act, plain and simple.
You can nitpick on the word valid all day, but the fact is prior to the bombing Marines lost a total of 268 servicemen in firefights over the two year period. They weren't exactly just watching forces withdraw.
The fact is that the rules of engagement at that time was that our forces were not allowed to have their weapons locked and loaded. Thus they were operating ina peacekeeping mission. They were not valid military targets as it pertains to the way described by other posters here. They were killed in a terrorist bombing.
Achrispage, my understanding of the situation is the same as yours. They were not legitimate targets unless one contends that a peacekeeping mission is a legitimate target...which I hope is not the case. They were virtually sitting ducks due to the rules of engagement they were forced to abide by. I really think those that believe they were a legitimate target are bending over backwards to excuse the suicide bomber who targeted a peace keeping force while they slept.
I dont understand how you can say that. Was the USS New Jersey shelling Lebanon at that time or werent they? OF COURSE IT WAS. If ONE part of our military was shelling their country why would another part be seen as just part of a peacekeeping force? When was the last time YOU saw a peacekeeping force SHELLING A CITY? There is a valid argument one only made valid by Reagans immense stupidity trying to have his cake and eat it too. Trying to support Israel by shelling the Shouf mountains and yet making the Marines follow rules of engagement AS IF WE WERENT COMBATANTS. We were, its that simple. You cant have your warships shelling the country then say time out THESE GUYS over here , THEY arent really soldiers THEY are peacekeepers. Its silly.
First of all the shelling you are referring to was not done by the USS New Jersey. They did not join the fleet until a September 25th ceasefire agreement following the battle in the mountains. Secondly, we were not supporting Isreal during that particular engagement. We were asked by the Lebanonese military to assist in protecting a town that was in danger of being overrun, by militias supported by Syrian forces. Nevertheless, your point has some validity but it still does not discount the fact that the Marines on the ground were part of a peacekeeping force that was recognized as such by all parties involved except the terrorists who ran a truck into their barracks. The reality is that those marines were not targeted by the Druze or malitias who were shelled. They were targeted by a terrorist organization upset because of our support of Iraq. The peacekeeping force did not engage in any offensive actions to support Isreal. they were their to oversee the withdrawal of the PLO. Those marines were not valid military targets as the rules of engagement in wartime dictate. You cannot point to 338 shells fired from our navy in support of a town as justification for Islamic Jihad truck bombing those marines. The two do not jive.
I think many don't recognize that the rules of engagement didn't prevent marines from firing, though it is valid criticism that it required an elevated level of discipline to carry it out. (That's why the marines were sent!). I'm not here though arguing if valid is the correct term though, I am more interested in pointing out that they were in a hostile zone, they had engaged in several actions during the two year period, and thus became targets. Valid targets or acts of terrorism really is just nitpicking in my opinion, because there was a civil war waging between several factions and Israel did step in. An illigitimate fighter can pull the trigger just as easily as a legitimate fighter, right?
All that is true and a valid point. However how much can we blame those on the other side of the conflict for not recognizing this distinction when the New Jersey was shelling Lebanon? Either we should have joined the fighting and given up any pretense of not supporting Israel or we shouldnt have supported Israel. It was bone ignorance to try to straddle that fence and make those Marines sitting ducks. At any rate it is too much of a stretch to demand they see THESE soldiers as not being valid military targets while OTHER parts of our military was SHELLING LEBANON
You just exposed yourself as a "phony Marine." That 268 number includes the 241 killed 24 years today.
You really didn't read the whole article, did you? The only phony here is you. I've got the discharge papers to prove I served honorably, you jackass.
Deez, you say if they were there on a military mission they were a legitimate target but they were not there on a military mission they were part of a peacekeeping mission. Do you still feel they were legitimate targets?
I do. Yes they werent on a military mission. How much stock can you put in hostiles making the distinction between THOSE American soldiers NOT being on a military mission WHILE the New Jersey was SHELLING THEIR CITY? So its like THOSE Americans are killing the Druze militia but THESE Americans are nuetral and arent part of the battle? How does that even make sense. The administration tried to SUPPORT the invasion while PRETENDING they werent supporting the invasion and the Marines were sacrificed to that farce. Tell me that if China invaded the US and we were fighting them. Then Russian warships were SAYING they were neutral and only wanted to keep the peace in New York City WHILE a Russian warship was SHELLING Brooklyn. Would YOU buy the Russians saying they were neutral peacekeepers or see them as part of the invasion?
Seems to me if you don't want to send the wrong signal, you would send PEACEKEEPERS to be PEACEKEEPERS. Say, a squadron of NUNS. Or perhaps a brigade of NFL referees.
When you send THE MARINES, and they are armed, it becomes difficult to accept peaceful intentions. And if the boat they came in on starts lobbing bombs into the territory, the aura of "peacekeeping" pretty much vanishes.
I notice KOZA has not denied that we were actively shelling the area, directed to support Israeli combat positions. That amounts to engaging in hostilities AND chosing sides.
It may well be that these decisions were proper under the circumstances, but to DENY THEY HAPPENED is to be simply willfully ignorant.
The argument is, and its one with merit, that we were supporting the Lebanese government until it could take control of Beiruit. This could be argued eitherway. The point I keep making is that its a little much to ask combatants to make this distinction. It certainly looked at the time like we were supporting the Israeli invasion since the Shouf mountains were a Druze and Palestinian stronghold. Did we at time stand up to the Israelis to keep them from overrunning our positions and doing whatever they wanted. Reports I remember say we did. However its still a fine distinction and it pretty hard to argue that armed marines involved in firefights with different Lebanese factions, while the USS New Jersey was shelling a Druze stronghold, remembering the Druze had a lot of respect and support in that area did not look like valid military targets. The real tragedy here is the Marines were in a completely untennable position. The THOUGHT they were neutral, I think they tried to be, yet decisions made high above their paygrade made it look otherwise. It was certainly a tragedy, it was certainly a complicated situation. To say it was terrorism is to me a stretch. Once you are in a country with YOUR military killing THEIR people it just looks silly to me to complain when they kill you back.
Not because of that. They were valid military targets. You can repeat this dumb meme another hundred times it wont make any more sense than the first time you said it. Just because the hivemind puts something into your head doesnt mean it makes sense.
Even Richard Clarke said that the barracks bombing was a terrorist attack. Only a bery ignorant person would consider the barracks of a peacekeeping force a legitimate military target.
I dont care what Richard Clarke said. Only a 'bery' ignorant MORON would tell me that while the USS New Jersey was firing one ton Shells into the Shouf mountains that OTHER American soldiers should not have been seen as valid military targets. Your brainwashing and assimilation are complete. You ARE a moron.
One military killing members or another is not terrorsim - it's war. If we'd retaliated at the time, then it would have been a reason to go to war. (A good one? That's debatable.)
But trying to use it to justify anything 20 years later is utterly senseless. Maybe Japan should retaliate against the US for dropping atomic bombs on them? Would that make any sense? Forget a history book, you need some concept of current events.
Those marines were killed by two members of a terrorist organization who drove a car loaded with TNT into a barracks. It was a suicide bombing of marines who were part of a multinational peacekeeping force there to oversee the withdrawel of the PLO. It is widely accepted that the bombing was a result of the organizations vehement opposition to our support of Iraq at that time. This was not a case of one military attacking another military. You should really re-examine your comments, because you are wrong about this. We were not there as a force to assist Isreal in the invasion of Lebanon, nor was the French or the British. They were not valid military targets, plain and simple.
Actually it is EXACTLY that. Yes we WERE supporting the Israeli invasion. Unless you can explain to me another reason we were shelling Palestinian and Druze strongholds in the Shouf mountains BEFORE this happened I cant really buy the we werent supporting Israel argument.
Yeah, we shelled the positions at the request of the Lebanese army. The shelling you refer to was never done in support of the Isreali military. We never engaged in an offensive action. The marines were part of a peacekeeping force. Their orders were such, the rules of engagment were defined by the fact they were peacekeepeers, and they were killed by two individuals, who were part of a terrorist organization, who drove a truck loaded with TNT into their barracks. That is clearly an act of terrorism. It wasn't Druze militia or syrians retaliating for the shelling in the mountains. These guys were part of of Islamic Jihad, terrorists. It is not a stretch to say this act was a terrorist act. I don't think the two events were related in the way you present them to be.
You're an idiot. Our Marines in Lebanon were there as part of a peacekeeping force. They were not bombed by another country's military force. They were attacked by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that had the backing of Iran.
Our bombing of Japan was an act of war that was executed during a war between the U.S. and Japan.
If you can't get your history correct, it's no wonder you're so ignorant concerning current events.
You are far too ignorant to be taken seriously. Your stupidity is legendary. You are just wrong. We were shelling Palestinian and Druze strongholds in the shouf mountains any pretense we were neutral peacekeepers disappeared as soon as that first shell hit. You can ignore the history and repeat the lies as long as any electric current runs through your hivemind it wont change the REALITY that we WERE supporting the Israeli invasion.
Joe Watkins obviously doesn't understand how the legislative process works.
I'll ask this again:
If Bush and Congress are able to compromise about SCHIP and get legislation enacted into law will he have been against it before he was for it?
No. Bush voiced his support for an expansion of SCHIP before the 2004 Republican National Convention. However, the Democrats' legislation went further than he wanted.
I think " ...Joe Watkins is a Republican strategist" says it all. He's simply spinning Clinton's words to imply she's doing the same as Kerry in his infamous sound bite.
I wonder why MMFA didn't include Brown's rebuttal?
He's simply spinning Clinton's words to imply she's doing the same as Kerry in his infamous sound bite.
And is that fair or honest? Isn't spinning just another word for lying?
He's simply spinning Clinton's words to imply she's doing the same as Kerry in his infamous sound bite
AA, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.Clinton did basically do the same thing as Kerry, that is, change her position due to changing conditions.
Watkins is not implying that she did what Kerry did, he's saying she 's doing what Kerry was mischaracterized as doing.
Both situations are pretty clearly detailed in the item above, but it sounds like you recognize the propaganda in the Clinton case, but are still confused by the medias spin regarding Kerry.
If I misunderstood your post, I'm sorry, but that's the way it reads.
HBL,
I am maintaining a neutral stance with regards to the Kerry soundbite. In my mind, it is a moot point as nothing will change the outcome. It happened and is well known. It doesn't matter at this point what I think about Kerry's statement. It's history. If it makes you feel better for me to say Kerry was unfairly mischaracterized, then ok.
I don't think this Republican "strategist" was lying as someone else had said. But he is using this incident to try to make an argument that Hillary is flip-flopping. If one is not paying attention or if one is uninformed, this guy is hoping his spin might increase the negatives for Hillary.
MMFA did a good job explaining Hillary's reasoning. Even though I don't agree with Hillary, she acted as any legislator would do when a resolution is changed and removes her objection.
Frankly, that Republican took the low road.
It has nothing to do with making me feel better, I was just trying to clarify what you wrote.Looks like your "neutral stance" regarding Kerry involves perpetuating the media spin that was dishonest at the time, and is clearly debunked in the item above for anybody who is a few years behind.
I don't think the "water under the bridge, let's not dwell on it" approach really applies when the lie is still being sold. But thanks for responding.
It used to be that "analysts" on the teevee would analyze and not spin like Watkins. You know: clarify for the viewers rather than obfuscate.
Dave,
I think it is not only the Republicans. But whenever I see either GOP/Dem "STRATEGIST" I know I am getting partisan spin.
This illustrates why it is virtually impossible to have an intelligent, grown-up debate with a Republican. They twist and (to borrow any poster's word) obfuscate with such ease that an otherwise intelligent and well-reasoned position becomes so distorted for the simpletons who populate the Republican voting bloc that its meaning is totally lost. Intelligent people see right through this but the slack-jawed goobers from the right wing nod their heads in agreement like glassy-eyed bobble-head dolls. They were successful with this strategy against John Kerry and you know they'll do it again against the next Democratic nominee.
Irony,
I think the Republicans were already for Bush and against Kerry on substantive issues. It is my opinion the mushy "middle of the road" crowd and undecideds who are more likely to be persuaded by this type of spinning.
That is why both sides do it. A good example was the Dems trying to exploit Bush's military record and the GOP doing the same with Kerry. Obviously their military service 30 years ago isn't indicative of their policy positions now, but both sides spun the military experience to make the other side look bad to the undecided voters.
AA, allow me to elaborate and explain what I meant. I was overly broad in suggesting you can't have an adult discussion with all Republicans...I have friends who are Republicans who are quite conservative. However, these are intelligent, rational people who would be embarassed to be assocaited with the likes of Rush Limbaugh or FOX News.
What I am referring to are the mindless sheep who can do no better than spout bumper sticker slogans and who routinely twist and distort the slightest thing into an unfair and illogical interpretation of fact or argument. You can't talk to people like that.
If you spout the same lies and nonsense that you share here, there is probably a good reason why you can't talk to Republicans, i.e., they think you're a belligerent nutcase.
Koolaid, I have no problem talking to sane, intelligent people of any persuasion. Guess that explains why it's a waste of time trying to talk to you. Perhaps it's all that anger you have built up inside you...
YOU are a bone ignorant moron. THAT is what makes it hard to talk to you not that you are a Republican.
IRONY:
The rightwing will TRY their propaganda tricks of mischaracterising and misinforming this election cycle, but THIS time, there is MMFA and Keith Olbermann to call them on it. Of course, we still cannot count on "news" people like Matthews and Blitzer to correct the misinformation on the spot, but they are learning to revisit the misinformation and at least TRY to set the record straight.
The problem is, the rightwing partisans dominate all the "news" forums, and feel free to say any damn thing they please. And why not? Up 'til now, their words have gone virtually unchallenged, to stand as "truth".
We have a perfect example in this thread. KOZAKID is a reliable parrot for rightwing talking points, which are simply NOT based on any reality. Yet he spouts his opinions as if they are valid, and he demonizes the left for not having the distorted, false version of history he presents.
Like the Wizard of Oz, the rightwing cannot exist without bluster, smoke and mirrors, and bold certainty ... all of it based on fictions of the rightwing's own invention. REALITY and TRUTH are to the rightwing as garlic and crucifix are to the vampire.
This is amazing. Irony 101 says you cant have a grown up conversation with a Republican. I lost track of how many Solon calls people who do not agree with the liberal position. Any one who does not buy into the liberal MM view on everything is stupid, dumnb, has no brain, or my fav...a troll. I wonder what has happened in live to make liberals such unhappy individuals. The simply face is that Hillary has a long history of changing her views to match the polls. Any one remember Hillary Care? Yet the mere mention that she acts like a politican makes one a troll? Only here does that make any sence. If you want to know why the dems will lose in 08, look no further. Rush reaches more americans than the NY times, and all liberal outlets combined....yet his audience must be crazy, mean, war loving people. Just amazing the disconnect between the regulars here and the real world. But go ahead, attack me, call me a troll. I am sure I spelled a word wrong in this post so call me stupid. Just so happy I am not Solon or Irony 101. Must really hurt to live life that unhappy
"...yet his audience must be crazy, mean, war loving people."
Uhhh, yea...exactly. What you don't appreciate is the disconnect between the mindless Limbaugh followers and real society. Despite Limbaugh's impressive ratings numbers his devoted listeners (like cult followers) are only a very small segment of the population. Limbaugh does not represent America...it is the conceit of Limbaugh and his sheep that thinks otherwise.
And by the way, the only thing that makes me unhappy these days is the waste of human life in Iraq as a result of Bush's neocon experiment in world domination and the cheerleading of the Rush Limbaughs. On the other hand in the many years I've listened to Rush Limbaugh I've detected a perpetual anger coming from the right. The purpose of the Rush Limbaughs and FOX News is to keep the right wing sheep sufficiently pissed off so they will vote. So, please don't accuse us of unhappiness because I've reached the conclusion that you have to be miserable to be a right winger.
Interesting theory.
Geez, pay attention POV. Solon gets after people who post insults. Period.
If you want civil discourse from Solon, or any other poster here, then be civil. It's really that simple.
Also, saying Rush reaches more people than all liberal outlets combined is misleading. He reaches 3-4 million listeners a day. While 3 million is still a small percentage of the population, it is worth noting that MoveOn itself has 3 million members.
Actually that isnt true. I do NOT call anybody who doesnt agree with the liberal position a moron. I call people morons who call US names or repeat endlessly the hivemind talking points that have long been debunked that dishonestly characterize our postions. I dont believe I have EVER called either Bruce or Jeter a moron and they are usually disagreeing with the liberal position and I have been here a long time. I hope you arent doing the usual crybaby conservative two step where attacks by conservatives are fine because God gave you guys the exclusive franchise on such attacks but the RESPONDING attacks are just soooo mean. As for Rush he is a liar and a bloviator. That is clear. He has told so many lies, made so many personal attacks why should anybody take him seriously?
So let me get this straight, if you follow Rush you are just part of a flock of sheep, but if you follow MMFA or the liberals your are in the main stream and a thinking individual? That is crazy. If you follow Rush you belong to a cult? The logic is amazing. What about the 2.1 million Rush raised for charity?...sounds like a horrible cult to me. What you fail to understand is that politicians all have the ability to lie and deceive, and you are kidding yourself if you think in such a narrow manner that believes because it comes from the left it must be right.
"...but if you follow MMFA or the liberals your are in the main stream and a thinking individual?"
What?? That is crazy...but yet a typical sheep argument lacking both thought or logic. Being a thinking individual has nothing to do with MMFA. MMFA is just a forum...Limbaugh is a preacher. Rush Limbaugh is an iconic cult-like leader of people who are either incapable or too lazy for independent thought. Trying to have a discussion with a ditto head is like trying to talk to a stack of bumper sticker slogans.
Sorry, Irony, you lose. Rush conned half of the 2.1M out of his congregation to cover his PR fund.That is so obviously not a cult. ;0)
More than the ability they have the inclination. Did you think we didnt KNOW that? Here is the difference. The Limborg hivemind comes in here and makes the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS often using the EXACT SAME PHRASING. Watch all the times you read moonbats, drive by media and such. I say that people who CALL themselves dittoheads make the hivemind comparison inevitable.
If you really think MMFA it is “just a forum” then you are truly a lost cause. If it were just a forum, then they would report things like a U.S. Senator who says the President is amused when soldiers die. If it were just a forum, then it would not be news when Olberman names some one “the worst person in the world”. But, just like I said, you went right to name calling. Don’t bother to deal with what I say, just call me a ditto head. Forget about facts or reason. You said you cant talk like an adult or have a grown up debate with a Republican, yet it is you who goes straight to the name calling.
Yes, MMFA is a forum...a forum dedicated to exposing right wing information. We, the posters, supply the dialogue. We agree, disagree, argue, insult, joke, etc. The Limbaugh show is a daily offering of misinformation and "analysis" by a drug-addled lunatic with a cult following. In a real debate even I could probably expose Limbaugh's pathological lying...and I don't claim to be MENSA material. Imagine what a really smart person could do to Limbaugh. But Limbaugh's show, like shows on FOX is as stage managed as professional wrestling or a tent revival. It's all showbiz, Einstein. If you have listened to Limbaugh as much as I have you would know that Limbaugh blames liberals or the Democrat (sic) Party for every bad thing that has ever happened. Hell, according to Limbaugh we liberals rejoiced over the Columbine massacre. Now, logically speaking, what are the odds that liberals have caused every ill that society has ever suffered? And what are the odds that the Republican Party, with its history of corruption, is totally blameless? It's so ridiculous... As is said it's as phony as professional wrestling or a tent revival. People don't follow Limbaugh to be informed; they just want their lunatic fringe beliefs reinforced. Got it...?
"You said you cant talk like an adult or have a grown up debate with a Republican..."
A perfect example of how you right wing ditto heads lie and distort...I did not say that you cannot have a debate or discussion with a Republican. I have conservative Republican friends and we are quite capable of having rational debates and discussions about politics. But the Republicans of which I speak are smart enough to see the obvious...that Rush Limbaugh is a complete fraud. The Republicans I know would be embarassed to be associated with Limbaugh and FOX. What I have been saying is that is impossible to have grown-up discussion with a Limbaugh sheep...and, quite frankly, I don't even waste my time anymore.
My mistake... I did say that about Republicans. However, I stand by my remarks that it is the Limbaugh dittoheads that I have a problem communicating with.
Well you are wrong. It IS just a forum. The fact they specialize in CONSERVATIVE media no more disqualifies them from being a forum than it disqualifies MRC or AIM from being a forum that only specializes in LIBERAL media. I am betting you dont consider THEM to be cults do you?
wow...Irony....you are great. First, you did not say it, then you did. But wait....you have "conserative friends". Lol.......to funny. Now you did say it but you stand by it. Kind of like a Kerry Clinton Flip Flop.....just like the story posted here. Not even 1:00 pm and my work here is done for the day. Time to turn on Fox for some pro wrestling.
My fault for being so careless with my words...have at it.
However, regardless whether I have sane, intelligent Republican friends, that does not diminish the fact that the right wing Republicans who blindly follow people like Limbaugh sheep-like are incapable of independent, thought and rational discourse. They twist, they distort and they lie...eactly as their heroes do.
How does it make you feel that a bi-partisan element of civilized society regards you as somehow deficient, morally and intellectually, because you are a right wing follower of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly? Does that cause you any embarrassment? It should...
Don't let it bother you Irony, I think admitting that your wrong is a great quality that is obviously lost on POV ---> along with a number of other things.
Well MHK...do tell please. At least Irony has something to say. I dont agree with him but he is talking. What am I wrong about...or do you just prefer to hit and run?