Alarming News

October 26, 2003

Blogging the debate. Well, the first 20 minutes anyway.

Kerry and Lieberman need to lose the thumbs up they do when they’re introduced.

Sharpton has let the whole ‘he’s the funniest candidate’ go to his head and now keeps throwing in really unfunny Sharpton-isms like ‘my mother is from the south and one thing she taught me was you can’t use watermelon seeds to grow oranges’ when referring to the war in Iraq. What?

Clark needs to blink. Says ‘Bush needs to, I mean the president needs to….’, thanks Wesley, we know Bush is the president. Blink, Wesley, blink.

It’s interesting how they all try to say ‘the president has failed’ and all they come up with in terms of an example is that he failed to get an international coalition. Sorry guys, I don’t think Americans are going to get very enraged about the lack of international coalition. We’re plucky cowboys, remember? None of the candidates get this. I mean, I can think of better things to criticize about Bush’s handling of Iraq.

Al Sharpton’s jail time has become like Kerry’s Vietnam service, no appearance is complete without its mention.

I like Lieberman singling out Kerry and Edwards for voting for the war but against the 87 billion aid. And ‘zing’, he got Clark with that ‘6 different positions on the war’ barb.

Kerry brings up his war experience, yes again, to explain his vote against the 87 billion. Again, Americans are not stupid, they know that it makes no sense to vote for a war and then not send money to support that effort.

Clark responds and says that George W. Bush (apparently, not ‘the president’ this round) didn’t go to the UN. Um, you sure? Cause, I don’t think I was dreaming when Bush went and our resolution got voted down.

Whoa, they left out Kucinch and Moseley-Braun in the first round of questioning and Kucinich called them on it! Soooooo funny.

Kucinich yells at Dean for running ads that say Dean was the only one opposing the war in Iraq (when in fact Kucinich, among others like Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, had too). This is so funny because I’m sure Dean was not thinking about, um, joke candidates.

Hahahaha, now Clark is blinking too much. Almost twitching blinking.

Alright, I’m not watching this whole thing. Philadelphia is outside and I’m going to explore.

Posted by Karol at 08:15 PM |

You just got hungry. Admit it.

Posted by: Dawn Summers at October 27, 2003 at 11:33 am

Nice blog :)
You were dreaming, the resolution was never put to the vote due to france, russia etc saying they would vote against.
You still owe me money!
- Brian

Posted by: Brian Rogers at October 28, 2003 at 7:23 am

Not so, Brian. From Andrew Sullivan, who picked up on the same Kerry lie:
KERRY: He promised he would go through the United Nations and honor the inspections process. He did not.
In September 2002, president Bush directly went to the United Nations and made an appeal to enforce U.N. resolutions with regard to Iraq. He supported the last attempt of U.N. inspectors to win a last-minute agreement from Saddam for transparent disarmament. He won a 15-0 U.N. Security Council vote on U.N. Resolution 1441, sanctioning dire consequences if Iraq did not comply with inspections. Kerry’s statement is therefore a bold and simple untruth.

Posted by: Kashei at October 28, 2003 at 9:14 am

Disclaimer: I didn’t watch it.
kashei says she recalls a resolution that was voted down – one *was* withdrawn, but none were put to the vote and voted down by the SC

Posted by: Brian at October 28, 2003 at 9:41 am

What’s the difference, clearly the UN was not going to act. I love when I hear Democrats say that they agree Sadam should’ve been taken down they just would’ve gotten world support. I think that’s a joke and it would be much more productive to talk about how to get even more world powers involved at this juncture [in Iraq]. France (and or Germany) clearly was going to veto anything regarding a military action vs Iraq to protect their economic and political interests. The U.K. is one of the only true superpower allies of the U.S, this should now be clear to everyone.
On a side note while pondering the world powers and the Iraq war, I thought to my self: Oh well, WWII was fought without France too (LOL)!

Posted by: Judah Maccabee at October 28, 2003 at 3:38 pm

As I recall “Dire Consequences” didn’t mean much to some Security Council Members and they wanted another vote before War was authirized.

Posted by: PAUL at October 28, 2003 at 4:48 pm

Right :) I only came on here to gently remind our mutual friend that she owes me money from years ago. That didn’t work. I’m not a Democrat. Difference is that Int. Law. requires security council authorization for this kind of operation, if there had been a vote that had been lost that would have been a problem. As it was the coalition used res. 678 (first Gulf war), instead of obtaining a new one. Germany does not have a security council veto. 1441 says “serious consequences”, but the phrase you need for a military intervention is “all necessary means” contained in resolution 678.

Posted by: Brian at October 29, 2003 at 6:53 am

So Brian,
Than by your own semantics, a vote was held on Iraq
“As it was the coalition used res. 678 (first Gulf war), instead of obtaining a new one.”
How much do you owe her?

Posted by: Judah Maccabee at October 29, 2003 at 10:36 am

3536 play video poker online

Posted by: video poker online at October 19, 2004 at 6:27 pm
Post a comment