Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

Yes its politics once again, I have been successfully avoiding it for quite a while, but now once again I digress . . .

The reason for the regression is that I am finally glad to see someone, especially a presidential candidate running against Bush, challenge the W camp on Iraq==9/11. Kerry challenges Bush on Iraq-9/11 connection

Now I know many people will argue that the Bush admin talking heads (Bush himeself, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc) never actually made the Iraq and American terror attacks links. But we all know thats pedantic bullshit for a team of manipulators skirting a very fine line intentionally and speciously. The tact is CLEARLY and DEFNITIVELY aimed at making people that dont pay close attention think there IS a link.

Statements like this, made recently by the vice president, and reproduced in similar same sentence implied connection thousands of times by all of the aforementioned W team are nothing less than despicable:

"A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."

(For the people still arguing there is no connection being made, that is the really dumb people, the ignorant people, and the smart people in clear display of cognitive dissonance because at one time they BELIEVED and SUPPORTED the Bush administration and now just accept anything they say to continue that support and save their own face, please explain to me how the veep referring to comments Kerry made about the Iraq war and using the word "war" with "killed 3000 people" is NOT a 9/11 connection? Is that a reference to some other event that Iraq was involved with that killed 3000 Americans? Bring it.)

Now as for Kerry finally addressing this issue, its a good move for him but its also a bit problematic. The issue is that its a little late to grow balls especially after having voted to SUPPORT the Iraq debacle.

One of Kerrys main problems for me personally is his original support of the Iraq war. Now he claims he wasnt told the truth about it and thats why he voted for it, and its also valid that at the time it was almost unanimously and stupidly supported by a pathetic fervor of nonsense (once vote against) but this claim is also specious. He knew, he just went along and played the game. Now its coming back to bite him, every pro Iraq claim the W administration makes he cant really dispute, because he did vote FOR it.

As for the pro Iraq claims, they would be easy to refute if you did NOT originally support the conflict. For instance the president keeps brining up that he will never get a "permission slip" to defend the country, clear reference to non UN sanctioned cowboy go it alone and piss on all your previous decades of foreign relationships and diplomacy invasion of Iraq (very clever to spin this as a POSITIVE thing eh?). He also says if Kerry or the other liberal pussies had their way Saddam would be a free man. And he continuously makes references to the war on terror (again, no connection). All of this is bullshit because of the fact that Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Kerry could say "well you know what I would not get a permission slip either, if American ACTUALLY WAS THREATENED, thats the difference here, we are talking about Iraq which for many years prior was successfully containted by the UN and has been shown not to have had any modern terrorist connection or WMD capability, we are talking about REALITY, for the President to make that statement is very irresponsible." But Kerry cant go there now can he, he can dispute the erroneous Iraq 9/11 link, as he is now, but he has to move carefully, again he voted FOR this the Iraq invasion. Same counter argument goes to all the make America safer and stronger nonsense. "Well I would make American stronger by not attacking sovereign nations that are NO DIRECT THREAT to the US and that the world community already recognizes as dangerous and deals with well. Make no mistake I would not ignore unstable and rogue states even in other parts of the world nowhere near America that are not a threat to America, but I also would not ignore the input of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with these regimes." And any time a W'ite brings up the UN as REASONING for going to war with Iraq, enforcing their resolutions, Kerry could have just laughed aloud. "So the UN which was bitchslapped and spurned by the US before the invasion because many Security Council nations AND other memeber states were OPPOSED to said invasion is now the reason FOR the invasion, very clever, but total bullshit. Do we attack every nation with UN resolution violations without the consent of the UN, does that make sense, if so we need to get busy and invade Israel?"

All the Iraq stuff could be turned into very negative things for Bush by a candidate that did not support the action originally. Now I grant that such a candidate likely never would have gotten this far with the American people, but thats not because he/she would have been wrong, thats because the majority of the American people are apparently either easily manipulated by the spin BS of the W admin, or are just plain not very bright.

Kerry can use the Iraq != 9/11 thing, and should, but he is on some thin ice if he goes any further as that just risks another rendition of marine mammal television theme music.