While I found John Kerry’s appearance on Letterman last night less than impressive, and largely a wasted opportunity, he seems to have more than made up for it today at my alma mater, NYU.
Here’s a couple of notable paragraphs in a speech that was entirely notable. Especially in light of the smoke blown by Bush at the U.N. (speaking of wasted opportunities!) where he received a predictably unimpressed…well, downright chilly reception.
I’d encourage you to check out Kerry’s whole speech today. Particularly you Bush fans who have no idea what Kerry really says about anything. So here’s just a few on-the-money thoughts from him today:
“Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no — because a commander in chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.”
…
“He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.”
…
“This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.”
…
“He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war.”
…
“This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.”
Mr. Bush, you got served.
Iam 46 years old. I remember the Vietnam war. I remember the nightly body counts. I remember the president not telling us the truth. Does this sound familer? How many have to die for a false cause. Go after Bin Laden people not some tin-horn crazy dictator. PUNT THE RUNT
Which president?
Democrat president JFK got us into the war with the advice of LBJ. Republican President Nixon got us out of the war.
Kerry has Clinton aids now so the politics of personal destruction will really get into full gear with Kerry.
a) I don’t believe Chuck was making a partisan statement, so I don’t know why you bother discussing "which president"
b) Do you have any idea who coined the phrase "the politics of personal destruction"? Who it was (and is still) in regard to?
c) Of course you don’t.
Horowitz can relate, as he and friends Ronald Radosh and Phillip Collier – also former leftists – have been labeled as murderers, racists and homophobes in the campaign of hatred against them, which began from the first moments they had a political change of heart. In short, the same political left that coined the phrase “the politics of personal destruction” has made it its mission to engage in such personal destruction.
William J. when he coined the phrase “The politics of personal destruction”
Actually, the Clinton crowd and their camp followers don’t really want to discuss issues or evidence. He has actually convinced himself, it seems, that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinksi even if she had sex with him in the White House. He has also convinced himself that he never lied to the grand jury, during the Paula Jones trial discovery, or in answering Congress’ questionnaire.
He has apparently also convinced himself that if he and his cronies use Fascist tactics and McCarthy’s style of innuendo, that is consistent with Clinton’s promise to have "the most ethical administration in American history."
Yet the Clinton Administration is the one that has coined the phrase and decried the practice of "the politics of personal destruction."
That’s pretty brutal rhetoric, even from a career hatchet artist like Goer [Al Gore]. It’s ironic that his mentor was the man who coined the phrase, in a negative context mind you, "the politics of personal destruction." Even the old Bill Clinton wouldn’t have stooped to calling a sitting President "incurious," morally weak, "a coward," "bully," "fearful," "obsequious," and basically crooked. Does that sound like a man who is at peace with himself, as we are so often told Goer is?
the Clintons were accused of using the "politics of personal destruction" to undermine …
It was Clinton who COINED the phrase "politics of personal destruction …
Glad you’ve learned how to use Google, Paul. Glad you’ve tried to inform yourself. As requested before, if you’re going to CUT and PASTE shit here, please supply the source for the CUT and PASTE (not that your article had anything to do with the discussion. As usual.)