It’s My Lie, and I’m Sticking With It

I'm not sure there was really any winner in the Presidential debate tonight, though I thought Kerry did a better job than he has done before in clearly stating his position.

What really stuck with me, though, is that Bush continues to push the myth that Kerry continually "flip-flops," that in some way he continues to revise his position on Iraq in order to gain political advantage.

Anyone who still believes that obviously hasn't subscribed to FactCheck.org, a non-partisan organization dedicated to exposing the half-truths that both parties have used in their campaign. And, yes, unfortunately both sides seem to feel it necessary to distort the truth in order to sway voters.

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, FactCheck.Org, article entitled BUSH AD TWISTS KERRY'S WORDS ON IRAQ: Selective use of Kerry's own words makes him look inconsistent on Iraq. A closer look gives a different picture. effectively debunks this myth and explains why they feel Kerry has been remarkably consistent.

Of course, while you're there you'll probably want to check out other ways both parties have distorted the truth. I'm sure it'll make you feel much better about our political system — not. Still, it's nice to know that there are groups that are still trying to get the truth out there.

7 thoughts on “It’s My Lie, and I’m Sticking With It

  1. I agree, it’s amazing how these people get elected sticking with the same four topics, and spew out so much information without telling how they truly feel. The half-truths are astounding, and that’s one reason why I can respect the people who write Bush and Kerry’s speeches, because they manipulate the language so well. Kerry’s just a little over cautious, while Bush takes a beligerant stance on things. Both should be used only in moderation. That, of course, is just an opinion. I do agree, and so does the Harvard speech professor, Kerry slightly came out on top. Looking forward to class Tuesday, have a nice weekend.

  2. Actually, this Kerry support just plain thinks the whole war was a mistake, and I’ve always argued that.

    If Bush couldn’t convince our NATO allies that the war was justified, he should never have been able to convince the Congress that he had enough grounds to attack.

    That said, I’m not sure what congressional members were told by the administration that we weren’t told as American citizens. I know there weren’t many candidates running for the Democratic presidential election that didn’t approve the resolution now, were there?

  3. Why do you support Kerry, then? He’s been consistent all along that he supports the war.

    It seems to me that the war is an extremely divisive issue. So, why does everyone who’s so worked up about it, support candidates who think war was right?

    In the face of glaring mistakes, Bush maintains the position that the world would be worse if Saddam were still in power. Kerry says the same thing. He just would have done it “better.” Why should we trust that? The words of a smooth talking politician? On what grounds should we trust a politician? Is the lesser of two evils satisfactory enough for us? Just because Kerry’s not Bush, he’s going to be better?

  4. Reinhold, it would be a mistake to assume that I always supported Kerry. I didn’t. I originally supported John Dean, not Kerry.

    But it would be even more of a mistake to assume that I base my support for Kerry primarily on his ability to oppose terrorism. I don’t. Terrorism is only one of several important isssues, and, in my opinion not the most important. I’m confident that no matter who the president might be that America can and will defend itself.

    Is there any doubt that whoever was President 9/11 would have gone to war with Afghanistan when they continued to support El Queda. Not in my mind.

    I’m actually more concerned with environmental issues and social policies than I am with who can protect America from terrorism. And on these issues, as I’ve written over at OSP, Kerry stands head and shoulders above the Bush administration.

  5. That’s a fair point. You’re right that any president would fight terrorism. I think that’s a weakness of Bush and his supporters. They don’t understand that any president, regardless of votes in the past, would engage in strong rhetoric against terrorists. Any president would do much the almighty public opinion polls told them too…

What do you think?