Debunking a Few Urban Legends that Bushies Think are Fact

[Solo Inter]

just to let ya'll know that Elder is just another conservative who has jumped on the buzzword bandwagon


by Ryan from www.dallasdencemusic.com/forums


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever since John Kerry has been nominated by the DNC, the Republicans have waged a war on his record, his character, and even his wife. They have spread around blatant lies and gotten the non-thinking portion of their base to go around chanting phrases like "flip flop." It is this complacency and unwillingness to seek truth that has been Bush's best ally in this campaign.

I have seen so many of these urban legends posted on this board and sent to me by my Bush-blind family, so I thought I'd take a moment to point out a few of the more prevalent pieces I've been confronted with, many of which have been touted as truth on this message board.

Recently sent around the media and every AOL inbox in America: John Kerry owns an illegal Chinese assault rifle.

No, he doesn't.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133803,00.html


Received this one about 10 times and saw it posted in here: Teresa Heinz-Kerry is exporting jobs abroad while John Kerry says we need to stop such practices.

No, she's not.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/heinz-kerry.htm


One of the more commonly accepted and posted in this forum numerous times: John Kerry "voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment in modern history."

Nope.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp


The show-stopper: Kerry has "flip-flopped" numerous times in his position on Iraq.

Wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=269


How are we supposed to have a real debate on anything when one side's position is based largely on misinformation that they refuse to research?

 

[Elder]

I'm not voting for Bush bigshot.

I knew about the gun and his wife exporting jobs or whatever being false.

But he has changed his position on Iraq in what seems like a weekly basis. If you can't see that, then you are completely blind.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I don't think he's changed his position, he just has a very roundabout, convoluted, illogical position.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Elder, the only evidence you had for Kerry having different positions on Iraq was a fake article from a Moonie cult-run paper that they have since retracted. If you're going to keep making that assertion we're going to need some serious proof. If he's changing positions on a "weekly basis" I'd like to see a minimum of 52 or so different positions he's taken. And that's actual positions, not you warping or taking quotes out of context or saying they represent a different stance when they clearly don't

And ShiftyPowers, I don't see what's so convoluted about Kerry's position. Work through all diplomatic channels possible to ensure that Iraq is not a threat, and if those fail, and Iraq is a threat, disarm them through force. And I would agree with that, however I knew Bush was lying all along about WMDs and links to Al Qaeda so I wouldn't have voted for the authorization, because I knew he was hell bent on invading no matter what. And frankly, I think it was unconstitutional. It's the job of Congress to declare war, not the president. So I fault Kerry for having more trust in Bush than Bush deserved, but he's been consistent.

But I have to say, Bush's position on Iraq has been remarkably consistent: he wanted to attack Iraq before he was even sworn in, he tried to get his advisors to fudge the facts on 9/11 to use it as justification for attacking Iraq, he had Powell lie to the U.N. to try and raise support for attacking Iraq, and he chased the weapons inspectors out of Iraq lest they find no weapons and ruin his justification for attacking Iraq. Kudos to Bush on his steadfast position of "Iraq will be invaded despite a lack of any justification, despite international opposition, despite the casualties, despite the cost, despite the distraction from the real war on terror, and despite the terrorism it will create."

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
And I would agree with that, however I knew Bush was lying all along about WMDs and links to Al Qaeda so I wouldn't have voted for the authorization, because I knew he was hell bent on invading no matter what. QUOTE]


How come the left, or maybe in this case, the anti war crowd ever figure out that "links" to al Qaeda wasn't the reason for war? It's almost as if nobody was ever listening. And I am sure you had no idea what was true or not before the war. You don't work in government... that's a very arrogant statement from you.


PS. You were a Dean fan... just by being a Dean fan, and by the debates that invovled Kerry and Dean, you should know that Kerry has changed his position on Iraq multiple times. Where have you been?!?!

 

[rhizome17]

Vote for the man whose family helped Hitler's war effort

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html



So the Bushies have helped Hitler as well as Saddam, Bin Laden etc... nice really patriotic that one.

 

[Virgo]

that's an argument that the republicans would use... don't sink to their level.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Elder, did you read the article Solo Inter posted regarding the truth about Kerry's mythic Iraq flip-flops? To me it was very telling, because even the Bush campaign, with all the money they have, with all the hundred of hours of tape at their disposal, can't show Kerry has switched positions on Iraq. All they can do is shamefully and pathetically take Kerry's quotes of context. So let's see some evidence, or stop making the claim.

How come the left, or maybe in this case, the anti war crowd ever figure out that "links" to al Qaeda wasn't the reason for war?

What? Are you saying Bush never used alleged terrorism links, including specifically linking Al Qaeda and Iraq, as a justification for the Iraq invasion?

Bush: 'Can't distinguish' between Iraq and al-Qaida

White House tries to link Hussein, al-Qaida

White House Links Iraq and Al Qaeda

"The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq," [Bush] said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions."

And, he added, al Qaeda is looking for specific assistance from Baghdad.

"We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities," Rumsfeld said.

In Bush's own words, from the State of the Union Address, 2003

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan



What? Are you saying Bush never used alleged terrorism links, including specifically linking Al Qaeda and Iraq, as a justification for the Iraq invasion?

Bush: 'Can't distinguish' between Iraq and al-Qaida

White House tries to link Hussein, al-Qaida

White House Links Iraq and Al Qaeda





In Bush's own words, from the State of the Union Address, 2003

Of course he said used terrorism as a point in the argument for going to war with Saddam. You just quoted it, and in doing so, made my point.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

No quote about al Qaeda there...

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.

Here he is making the comparison (well, the speech writers anyway) that with these type of weapons, he could pass them off to a terrorist group. This could be ANY terrorist group, and Saddam did support and harbor terrorists, and that was the POINT. After 9/11 you either take that chance or you don't... We can disagree as to whether he had them or not, but that's a judgement call on the part of the President. What if Bush did nothing? Then you would want to behead him for ignoring the "warnings" of the world community. Remember, please, please... France, Germany, and Russia were all in agreement on the WMD. Just not in agreement on how to go about ridding Saddam of them.

 

[Brondbyfan]

We can disagree as to whether he had them or not, but that's a judgement call on the part of the President.

No we can't. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

And way to ignore all the other articles and quotes.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
No we can't. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

And way to ignore all the other articles and quotes.

Way to ignore that the WORLD believed there were...

Don't know what South Coast times is, so I ignore it. The link from ABC has a quote that just says there are al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Well, yes, there are. The link from the Kansas times or whatever it just a moral judgement that Bush has made. In that, he believes that Saddam and al Qeada are both "evil" or some ****.

expressing concerns that al-Qaida terrorists could become "an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred."

That's what he has been arguing for quote some time...

What's your point Brondby?

 

[Stotty]

sexual