Ace of Spades HQ

« CBS News Changes Its Story-- Again | Main | Unrest in Iran? »

September 29, 2004

Kerry Attempts to "Clarify" Position on War

Only Succeeds in Confusing Poor Diane Sawyer, Which, To Be Fair to the Squishy Senator, Doesn't Sound Like That Difficult a Trick

Son of Nixon, still on sabbatical at an undisclosed location, tipped me to this. The transcript isn't up at ABCNews just yet, but I found this version at Rush Limbaugh's site:

SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

SAWYER: So it was not worth it?

KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. But I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat -- weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection of Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein. The president misled the American people, plain and simple, bottom line.

SAWYER: So, if it turns out okay it was worth it, but right now it wasn't worth it?

KERRY: No. It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done.

Okay. Let's put aside the distortions that there was "no connection" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and that Bush claimed there was an "imminent threat" posed by Iraq.

I guess we also have to put aside the fact that just a month ago he said he'd have voted for the war, even knowing what he does now.

But, like I said, let's just sort of ignore all that for the moment.

What have we learned?

According to John Forbes Kerry of Beacon Hill, it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, depending on the "outcome," in which case it might have been the right thing to do.

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Possibly...?

Depends on the outcome.

That's what I call a tall drink of nuance.

But in any event you have to elect John Forbes Kerry president, because he has, it seems, a "clear plan" for either getting us out of Iraq or winning the war in Iraq, depending on the day of the week and the hour of the day.

Linked by "Shadowy Connections" Update: William offers the many faces of John Kerry.

posted by Ace at 06:01 PM

Comments

It is almost painful to read, isn't it?

I think the debates tomorrow will be anticlimactic and neither man will give much in the way of a show. All Kerry has to do is get through the debate without waggin' his finger at W. And all W has to do is manage to get through the debate without falling asleep listening to Kerry.

I would be very surprised if he allows them to bait him into a frustration response. I would also be surprised if Kerry gets through the debate without contradicting something he has previously said.

All in all, I think it will be a bit of a let down for anyone who is expecting fireworks.

Posted by: Jennifer on September 29, 2004 06:18 PM

We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

I'm not a "professional" journalist, of course, but maybe a good follow-up question might have been, "That's not at all helpful, Senator, but since we're pretending to be forthright and all, how about answering the real question: Do you think we should have gone to war based on what we knew then?"

Not that his answer would have made sense.

Posted by: George on September 29, 2004 06:44 PM

How in the name of the Almighty are we supposed to know what the outcome is before we decide to do anything?

Posted by: The Black Republican on September 29, 2004 07:03 PM

Is this like a gordian knot? Even I cannot keep up with this. Does John Kerry actually believe that you can make decisions looking in the rear view mirror?

Posted by: Nomorelies on September 29, 2004 07:06 PM

Jennifer--

I agree. They'll both be on their best behavior, and they'll both be a little nervous. It'll be a wash, which will hurt Kerry a bit more than W. If W. ties all three debates, he wins-- but if Kerry can't eke out a victory tomorrow, the media will start spinning "Kerry really needed to differentiate himself tonight, and he failed to do that with his subdued performance."

The good news is, such a critque makes it even likelier that the NEXT debates will have fireworks, as Kerry tries to get more "lively."

I just don't see how the debates will help Kerry, unless Dubya gets a lot of things spectacularly wrong, and Kerry comes across as not only smart but competent-- and empathic. I'm not taking that bet.

BTW, I haven't paid attention to the formats (I know one is a town hall), but there's a live audience for each of them, I'm sure. And that will most likely hurt Kerry-- he's got more of a desire to play to the cheap seats, and all it takes is a bit of Arsenio-style "whoop, whoop" to derail a gentlemanly debate, and turn into a MoveOn rally.

Personally, I can't wait until Tuesday, when we get to watch the Vice President debate the Boy Wonder. I've got a feeling that watching it will be like watching Vader dismantle Luke at the end of ESB, lazy one-handed lightsaber swings and all that jazz.

Or better yet, Cheney may just force-strangle the smile off of Pinocchio's waxy face-- "I find your lack of faith in the American fighting man disturbing."

Cheers,
Dave
Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on September 29, 2004 07:26 PM

My head. Hurts.

Posted by: Andrea Harris on September 29, 2004 10:04 PM

I love this!
It is like going back to MegaMillions with my ticket ang saying:

"Knowing what I know now, it was not worth buying the ticket because it did not win,it was a lemon, give me back my money. However, had it won the prize, it would be worthwhile buying it."

So, next time we buy a ticket, we should keep this in mind and make the decision accordingly.
Sweet, isn't it?

Posted by: Julius on September 29, 2004 11:17 PM

You guys kill me. I don't normally read the comments
here, but you're almost as funny as Ace.

Oh... Did you see that Michelle Malkin linked him
and said "one of my must-reads every day"?

Woohoo!

Posted by: blakjack on September 30, 2004 12:23 AM

I have to give Ms. Saywer credit, though. I would have laughed in his face if tried to answer with such sophomoric and ethically flawed arguments. I read from so many sources that John Kerry is a great debater. How is it possible with such amazingly flawed logic and reasoning skills? He must have faced particularly poor debate opponents...I take it he never had to deal with the likes of William F. Buckley.

Also, by Kerry's "logic", nothing can be perceived as being worth *anything* until the event is over and done with. Can you imagine FDR being asked during WWII if the European War Theatre was "worth it" and he answered, "Well, when it is all over, we shall see if attempting to stop the evil of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and keeping Europe free from totalitarian rule was worth it. I cannot say until such time, however."

Posted by: addison on September 30, 2004 05:38 AM

SonofNixon should have included the rest of the transcript because a bit further down the entire interview degenerates into Abott & Costello's "Who's on first" skit. That Diane Sawyer plays a great Costello.

Posted by: Windycity on September 30, 2004 09:13 AM

Headline: John Kerry exposes his supersecret weapon which will enable him to be "the best president ever!"

He's psychic!

Posted by: Bohemian Conservative on September 30, 2004 01:25 PM

KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

SAWYER: So it was not worth it?

KERRY: We should not -- depends on the outcome ultimately and that depends on the leadership, and we need better leadership to get the job done successfully.

Where is the flip-flopping? Sorry, he didn't "Stick to his guns"? The difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry is willing to accept and point out that humans, based off of the information that is provided to them, are fallible.

He's not arguing whether we should have gone to war. He's stating that given the information we have now, if he were President, he would not have gone to war. He is using rhetoric to side step the question. The bottom line is he won't state whether or not the war in Iraq was worth it. Why? What is done is done. According to our intelligence in Iraq at that start of the war the United States was conviced that there were weapons of mass destruction there. Bush, going on his gut reaction attacked. Bad move, he didn't even let the inspections pan out before moving in. The man has no idea what he's doing.

According to Bush, Kerry is a flip-flopper. If that is so is Bush not? Let's take a look at Bush:

Bush says he wouldn't go to the UN in regards to Iraq, he claims he doesn't need to.
---Bush then goes to the UN panel and asks for help with Iraq (Bush-flop #1)

Bush originally says he won't support a new Homeland Security Department.
---Bush later (after some firm advice I imagine) says he supports the idea of a new Homeland Security Department. (Bush-flop #2)

Bush says he won't support the 9/11 Commision,
---then he does (Bush-flop #3)

There are so many more changes of position that Bush has taken...I won't waste your time or my own.

Also, comparing Bush to FDR and the European Theatre to Iraq is ubsurd, there are little if any similarities.

Posted by: InDisagreement on September 30, 2004 07:02 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.